that the health care plan they had and liked was canceled. millions of americans are having their hours and wages cut as employers try to struggle with this complex law. many find they can no longer access the care they relied on from their local doctor or hospital. millions of americans are left wondering what happened to their promise $2,500 reduction in premiums. and next year millions more will see their premiums skyrocket again due to the administration's failure to meet their own enrollment goals. the american people have paid over and over for this health care law. they paid higher premiums, they paid having their hours cut back and their paychecks decreased. the last thing this law should do is penalize americans for being unable to purchase a plan on healthcare.gov either because of multiple web failures to they were unable to find an affordable plan. . the obama administration

unilaterally exempted businesses from the tax for 2014. simple fairness demands that congress provide the same relief to hardworking americans. when congress can act to provide some relief for hardworking americans, we should. every member here has heard from a frustrated constituent. this shouldn't and need not be a partisan fight. granting relief for hardworking americans is only fair. voting yes on h.r. 4118 is the right thing to do for the people we represent. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. leffy: i yield myself such time as i may consume. -- mr. levin: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time he may consume. without objection. well, here they go again. but this time it's the 50th time

that house republicans have brought up legislation to repeal or to undermine the affordable care act. ut this 50th time is no golden anniversary. it's a house republican goose egg for millions of americans. just look at this, 50 votes. with zero votes to raise the minimum wage. zero votes to renew unemployment insurance. zero votes to guarantee paycheck fairness. zero votes to pass immigration reform. so let's spend a minute looking exactly at what would be the impact of this if it became law. in 2014 we would see an additional one million uninsured. one million. in 2015, two million more people

would be uninsured if the individual mandate stayed in effect. and in 2016 another million people. and the irony of this, and i think my colleagues on the democratic side will speak to this, the irony is the individual mandate was a republican idea. it was formed in the conservative heritage foundation in the 1980's, and throat -- throughout the 1990's republicans argued its merits. it was one of the foundations of e massachusetts law, its parent, at least in good measure, was governor mitt romney. i met an hour or so ago with representatives of a major insurance carrier in massachusetts.

he explained how it's working, 97%, 98% of the people are covered. that law has sparked an improvement in the delivery of health care. in the restructuring of health care delivery systems. so here we are instead of constructive action essentially we have a republican demolition squad. can any law be made perfect? yes, including this. but that isn't what the republicans are after today. they have never come up with their own plan. indeed, they are a wrecking crew. america deserves much better. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, madam speaker. the enforcement of the individual mandate penalty tax is an important issue, an issue of basic fairness. i look forward to debating this legislation on the house floor. on february 10 of this year, the department of the treasury announced that it would delay enforcement of the employer mandate penalty tax for businesses with 51 to 100 employees until 2016. this delay in the president's health care law comes on the heels of a similar delay the administration announced last july which exempted all large businesses from the employer mandate penalty until 2015. amidst all of these delays it's easy to forget that the employer mandate, like the individual mandate, was required by the affordable care act to be in effect right now. the president has now acted unilaterally on two separate

occasions to give big businesses relief from this tax burden. however he has not leveled the playing field for the millions of individuals and families who are forced to comply with the individual mandate tax. aside from the fact that it is fundamentally unfair to give businesses special treatment that is not extended to these individuals, american families have also been forced to deal with a botched rollout of healthcare.gov and a series of confusing administration delays of the law issued via blog post s. this has led to confusion, frustration, and ultimately difficulty in complying with the law. nowhere is this more evident than the fact that only four million americans have enrolled in health coverage on the healthcare.gov website. this means that with less than a month to go in this initial open

enrollment period, we are still three million enrollees short of the original c.b.o. projection of seven million enrollees, one that even the administration once touted as its goal. enrollment is still two million enrollees short of c.b.o.'s new projection of six million enrollees. these millions can be added to the tens of millions of other american individuals and families who will now likely be forced to pay the individual mandate penalty. in my state, kansas, the latest consensus information estimates that 356,000 folks are uninsured. at the last count only 22,000 of those individuals have enrolled on healthcare.gov. unlike businesses, the president has offered no relief for these individuals who do not or are

unable to comply with the law's mandates. i believe that this is simply not fair and the house must act to provide parody for these folks. that's why i have introduced this bill under consideration today. h.r. 4118 would eliminate implementation of the individual mandate penalty for one year. this means that the individual mandate penalty would be zeroed out this year. it would raise to $95 or 1% of income in 2015. to $325 or 2% of income in 2016. and $6 5, or 2.5% of income for 2017 and thereafter. i believe this is a simple concept and considering the circumstances i applaud this committee for taking up this legislation to provide fairness to all americans under the president's health care law. the osing i'd ask this, if president can delay the employer mandate, where's the relief for

everyone else? it's time to give relief to hardworking individuals and families and work toward a legislative solution to eliminate these tax penalties for everyone. congress must pass this bill today and create simple fairness for all. thank you, madam speaker. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: it's now my special pleasure to yield three minutes to the gentleman from california, with whom those of us on ways and means have worked all these years on health care reform, one of the authors of this bill, mr. waxman, the ranking member of energy and commerce, from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. the truth of the matter is no matter how many votes the republicans cast to repeal the affordable care act, and no

matter how many distortions they spread about the law, there are some facts they cannot change. they cannot change the fact that because the affordable care act nobody in america can ever again be denied health insurance because they have a pre-existing condition. they cannot change the fact that a woman can never be charged more than a man for the same coverage. they cannot change the fact that a family will never again be left without coverage just because their child's hospital bills got too high. these facts are stubborn. they are inconvenient for my republican colleagues, so they ignore them and they deny them. republicans have voted or will today 50 times to try to take away the basic security and freedom guaranteed by the

affordable care act. they offer absolutely no solution for the tens of millions of americans who need health care coverage that is secure and affordable. they have voted to repeal the law, but they have never once voted for a replacement. madam speaker, if the republicans have a solution that will expand coverage, in a will end discrimination -- that will end discrimination by insurance companies, that will reduce the deficit, they need to bring it up for a vote, but they do not have solutions. what they want to do is deny health insurance coverage to millions of americans. that's a shame. and i think we are wasting our time today voting again to turn our backs on the bill that will offer so much to the american people. don't we have anything else to do? all we seem to do is deny

science, which is the bill that will be coming up next, the republicans want to stop e.p.a. from dealing with the climate change issue, or denying the rights of people to get health insurance. which the republicans have voted over and over again to do. i urge we vote no on this bill and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, chairman kevin brady, our chair of the ways and means health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. brady: madam speaker, i rise today in support of the simple fairness act and thank the leadership, the gentlelady from kansas, on this area. back home my people are frightened about the affordable care act. they don't think it's a waste of time to be trying to fix and repeal and stop this. they are paying a very steep

price for it. president obama made them some big promises when he sold them this health care plan. he promised americans could keep the plan they like. he promised lower health care costs. he promised a functioning website he said would work as good as amazon. the white house hasn't delivered on any of these promises. where i'm from, if you make a mistake, if you don't keep your promise, you step up and fix it. you don't blame those who you've hurt. no american should have to pay a penalty because obamacare fell short of its promises. no american should vice president to pay a penalty pause the website couldn't accept their application or deliver the correct information. no american shouldn't be penalized for trying days on end to purchase a plan only to decide it was too expensive. no american should be penalized because they are concerned about the security of their private information on this government website. and no american should be penalized by the i.r.s. because of sticker shock or deciding not

to purchase the plan that's so much more expensive than what was promised. president obama gave big business a break. he deserves to give average americans the same type of break as well. simple fairness requires that we do the same for the miles per hour people. that's all this is about. it's all we are doing today. treating average americans who are hurt by the affordable care act the way the white house helped big business with the same exact problems. the american people deserve the same relief. we ought to give it to them. that's why this bill is called the fairness act and deserves our support. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. levin: madam speaker, i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. rangel, and i ask that the balance of our time be managed by mr. mcdermott, the ranking member on the health subcommittee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from new york is recognized for three minutes.

mr. rangel: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. rangel: thank you. my colleagues, there's a cancer growing in the republican party in the house of representatives. and as much as the democrat that i am, i hate to see this happen because our government is based on a two-party system. the republican party in the house they're doing the same insane things 50 times without getting the same results. it's bad enough that all of us ve to go down in political favoritism or our reputations go down, but this small group

of people are going far enough now that the national republican party has no credibility. i will not embarrass anybody by asking them just who do you think nationally should serve our country from, pardon the expression, the republican party? you have none. somewhere along the line this insanity has to stop because you're not beating up on democrats. you're beating up on people that have no health insurance. if you don't like the president, if you don't like this bill, let's talk about the millions of people that have no health insurance instead of just for the 50th time saying you don't like the bill. it's the law. the house and the senate have signed it. the supreme court has verified it. the president can veto anything you do if something did happen. why don't we talk about

immigration reform? rebuild the integrity of your great party from past years. why don't we talk about the minimum wage where all candidates would say if you work hard in america and do the right thing then you can achieve anything that you want? if you're middle class, you can achieve poverty. if you're poverty, you can't even get a decent wage for working. we could many things do. don't you remember the days before the affordable care act when you had constituents coming in saying i can't get insurance? how about the days where people say, my husband was in the hospital and they cut off insurance? or even worse, i tried to get surance and they told me i used -- and i can't get insurance? or the guy that's working and he's on his parents' insurance and he's 26 years old?

don't you have any of these people in congressional districts? are all your people well and can do without health insurance? how do you go home and explain that we do have a bill and instead of perfecting it, supporting it, educating your people how they can get health insurance that you have tried once, you have tried 10 times, 20 times, 30 times, 40 times, 50 times to derail and destroy it? i don't know how you get away with this. i don't know what you put in the water that you feed your constituents, but it certainly doesn't make sense that you can try to destroy and at the same time knock the substitute. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. the gentlelady from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. speaker.

i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from ohio, our friend and colleague on the house ways and means committee, jim renacci. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for two minutes. mr. renacci: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 4118, the simple fairness act. according to a recent gallup poll, 51% of americans disapprove of the president's health care law and for good reason. the rollout of the failed misguided law was nothing short of disast russ. it's played whips by preventing many americans from purchasing health insurance from the federal and state exchanges. through the president's -- though the president promised lower costs, many are facing the reality of higher premiums and a steep penalty if they cannot afford the plans that are offered. recently, the administration delayed the employer mandate for a second time, leaving intact the mandate that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. the bill before us today would

ensure that no american would be forced to pay the individual mandate penalty tax in 2014. it is evident to this chamber and americans across the country that the president's health care law is too complex, too costly and completely unworkable. ultimately, this law should be fully repealed. but i'm here today because i believe that all hardworking americans deserve relief from the president's health care law. congress should afford individuals the same advantage the administration is giving to businesses and delay the individual mandate. it's simply common sense. i ask my colleagues to come together and pass this important bill and send it to the president to be signed into law. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, today is a little like

groundhog day. the republican leadership has come out here and tried to decide what the weather would be and they're going to get the same answer that they've gotten 49 times before. they can pass it from here but it's not going to change anything. we've seen this poorly designed, sadly staged bit of g.o.p. political theater before. 50 times. this is the 50th vote of this koch rty, co -- brothers-led congress to crash the affordable care act. americans want affordable herk and a.c.a. delivers it to them. a.c.a. has saved lives. it's brought down our spending. new fraud measures, including new authorities imposing payment suspensions and more rigorous provider enrollment procedures put into law by a.c.a. helped the federal government recover $4.3 billion in taxpayers from individuals

and companies that tried to defraud the health care programs. the a.c.a. is delivering historic results for the american people, and yet the republican leadership is hell-bent on a 50th stroke. regardless of the fact that our economic system remains stuck in neutral, nothing has been done about jobs, unemployment insurance, raising the minimum wage and so forth. but if that was all that was going on here, this would still be insulting and absurd. the bill under consideration day, h.r. 4118, is virtually identical to h.r. 2668, a bill passed on the 17th of july, 2013. the republicans have already passed this bill to delay the individual mandate, something the c.b.o. knows will result in higher insurance premiums. so beyond wasting time and engaging in stunts designed to make the producers of fox news

happy, republicans want to return americans to the days before a.c.a. when a cancer victim couldn't get covered and seniors couldn't get their prescriptions, to the day when wage workers who paid hundreds of dollars out of pocket went without, the days of this ever-changing list of pre-existing conditions that companies tried to drop coverage. the real business of the congress should be to stand up for those americans and millions more like them. that's what the american people want. that's what the american people deserve. that's why they want us to vote no. jim mccrery, 2000, march, said in an article in "the american atlantic monthly" that an employer and an individual mandate was essential. i can't understand the republicans saying we don't

want everybody to play, we don't want everybody according to their ability to be in. why are you so eager to let people out the door, because they're going to wind up in the emergency room? have no doubt they will be getting health care but they won't pay for it. you're saying, that's ok with us. we like people who are free riders. that's not america. we all are supposed to do our part, and that's why everyone here should vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, our friend and colleague on house ways and means committee, todd young. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. young: thank you, madam speaker. as we approach the deadline for enrolling in obamacare sanction insurance, it's become clear that the system is not working as its supporters intended.

for months we've been learning about website problems, spiking premiums and lost coverage. for months we've seen an underwe will aming of -- underwhelming of signups. for months we've heard heartwrenching stories from our districts about the negative impact, this botched rollout has had on hardworking american families. unfortunately for those families, the white house and those who help bring us this law have consistently turned a deaf ear to americans' concerns. meanwhile, at the urging of the business community, we have the white house delay the employer mandate tax twice. what must the constituents in our districts do to be heard by obamacare supporters? should they form trade organizations and hire a lobbyist so that maybe president obama and champions of this law will listen?

well, guess what. my constituents did hire someone to lobby on their behalf when they elected me to congress. it's simply not fair when businesses get a break but the people who work at those businesses do not. i'm all for delaying the employer mandate tax because it's confusing and it's cumbersome for our businesses, but i also feel very strongly the individual mandate tax is just as cumbersome for individuals and families as the employer mandate tax is for our businesses. i believe that individuals and families deserve the same sort of delay, so on behalf of my constituents in indiana's ninth district and on behalf of all of yours, i encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill and to support simple fairness. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: madam speaker, i

yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. -- speaker pro tempore: mr. mcdermott: i give three minutes to mr. davis from chicago first. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for three minutes. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. and i rise in strong opposition h.r. 4118, the 50th vote to repeal the health care act which passed and implemented with decreased coverage and increase the number of people who are not insured by as much as 11 million people in this country. it's unbelievable that we would be on the floor voting for the 50th time to try and turn back the clock on millions of americans who have been denied health insurance coverage because of a pre-existing condition, didn't have enough money or did not have accessibility to facilities.

in illinois, over 256,000 individuals benefit from the affordable care act. nationally, more than four million americans have enrolled in private plans with 82% receiving premium tax credits to make health insurance more affordable. more than 3.1 million young adults have access to health insurance by remaining on their parents' plans onto age 26. millions more americans have secured new coverage through the medicaid expansion. rather than decreasing or taking away the republican leadership and all of us ought to be increasing and providing. we ought to be affording individuals the opportunity to get insurance because they're unemployed, to get a check. and so it's amazing that rather than giving we would be talking

about taking, taking away when the law says and all of us know that everybody ought to have access to quality health care. i oppose this legislation and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: madam speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to my friend and colleague from tennessee, dr. phil roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentlelady for recognizing me. madam speaker, i rise in support of the simple fairness act and a level playing field for all americans. in the span about of about seven -- of about seven months, the obama administration has done twice of providing relief for big businesses. working families are forced to comply with the individual mandate. over the last year, president obama's broken promises on

health care become too numerous to count. americans were told if they like their health care plan they could keep it. well, tell that to the 8 ,000 tennesseans -- 82,000 tennesseans who were forced out of their health care because of obamacare. they said that obamacare would lower the cost of health insurance. explain that to the 11 million people that see their premiums increased. we were told by the democratic leader, obamacare would create jobs. i invite her to have a conversation with the workers at mountain state's health alliance in my district who lost their jobs. even the c.b.o. agrees that this law is discouraging work. throughout the implementation of obamacare, the one thing that the president has held firm on is that working families must buy insurance or else. . he promised a veetrooo on thising commonsense legislation

simply because it delays pents for one year. here in the people's house we should stand for their interest and treat people the same as big businesses. it's only fair. mr. speaker, i would argue that if this bill is doing so well, why would only 34% of the people in this country approve of it? i urge my colleagues to support this bill and yield back the alance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. it's a plsh sure for me to follow my good friend, dr. phil roe, on the floor because we spent last weekend speaking of health care, along with mr. mcdermott, in houston, texas, at a fabulous conference by the nonpartisan commonwealth fund to be able to deal meaningfully with health care problems and

bringing people together in a bipartisan basis to discuss them. now, i know that some things we have to do and got to come to the floor to repeal this 50 times, but i would hope that sooner rather than later we reach a point where we can focus on things that bring americans together, not divide them. something that will improve the quality of health care and actually has nothing to do with spending money, new mandates, or obamacare. i'm referring to the legislation that i'm pleased to have co-sponsored with my good friend, dr. roe, h.r. 1173, the personalize your health care bill. it has over 50 bipartisan co-sponsors. it would enable, for the first time, to provide voluntary consultation on advanced life

care planning for medicare and medicaid. every five years or when somebody becomes first eligible, it would provide grants to establish and expand programs for physician ordered for life sustaining treatment. it would require that certified electronic health records could display current advance directives and physician orders for sustaining treatment. bear in mind right now every day there are people who are getting health care at their most critical, vulnerable moments, at the end of life, that is not necessarily what they want. the majority of americans would rather spend their last hours or days surrounded by their families, at home. but very few americans actually are able to do that. they end up in an i.c.u., not necessarily because that's their choice, but because their

choices haven't been recorded and haven't been respected. it's fascinating to me that dr. billy graham, in his recent book, talks about the christian responsibility to spare one's family from impossible decisions like that. that it's the christian responsibility to have that conversation in advance, execute the appropriate papers, and make sure nobody has to guess about whether a loved one wants to be in an i.c.u. or at home. dr. bill frist, fellow tennessean of my friend, dr. roe, had an op-ed in politico a few months ago, talking about his experience. dr. frist was former republican majority leader in the senate. but he's also a respected physician. may i have another minute? mr. mcdermott: i yield an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. blumenauer: he's also a

respected heart surgeon who's faced families in this circumstance and he he knows that they need information, they need help, and that their wishes need to be respected. now, maybe, instead of repealing obamacare the 51st or 58th or the 100th time, legislation that's not going to go any place, maybe we could take a little bit of a time-out and consider the legislation that dr. roe and i have worked on that's not partisan, that doesn't have anything to do with obamacare, that would enable families in their time of need to know what their choices are and to make sure that their choices, whatever they might be, are respected. they are respected in their city, they are respected across state lines. that they protect their family and that they get the care they want and they need as they approach end of life. mr. speaker, i hope that we will find time this year from passing

post office renaming and what not, this is a piece of legislation that could come to the floor on the suspension calendar and would make a difference for families all across america. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from -- the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from kansas. ms. jenkins: i'd like to yield one minute to our current republican house majority leader, the gentleman from virginia, eric cantor. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i want to thank the gentlelady and congratulate her on her leadership for this bill and making sure that we reinsert a notion of fairness back into the law for the people of this country. mr. speaker, i do rise today in support of the simple fairness act. for the past few months the president's health care law has been wreaking havoc on the

american people. after the administration's disastrous launch of the exchanges, obamacare has been anything but what the president had promised it would be. it has become very clear that this law is doing more harm than good. we now know that obamacare has pushed up to five million people off the health care plan they liked. and many are now being denied the care they had. to make matters worse, many of these new plans will force americans to pay higher premiums and higher deductibles. this leaves them with a limited number of options for health care coverage. many folks who are also finding out that they cannot keep the doctor or the pediatrician that they want to go to and trusted. to put it simply, this is not how america should work. the american people deserve

better. yet time and again the obama administration has shown its true colors by putting politics irst and unilaterally delaying parts of the law to avoid political repercussions. this has become most evident by the administration's delay in the employee mandate for big businesses. the s refusal to delay individual mandate for working americans. just yesterday it was reported the administration will announce another major unilateral delay on their minimum coverage requirements to, and i quote, the publication, "the hill," to ease election pressure on democrats. doesn't it say something that the authors of this legislation are worried that it's being implemented before they face

voters again? and i ask, will future presidents perhaps of our party be able to simply delay or cancel all or part of obamacare? will my colleagues on the other side of the aisle withhold complaint then? there is no greater indictment of this law or proof of its failure than the fear that full implementation invokes in its authors. it is not fair to pick and choose which parts of an unpopular law should be enforced at the expense of working individuals for political expediency. and it's just not fair that businesses and insurance companies get delays and exemptions and not hardworking americans. it's not fair. millions of americans all over the country are already living paycheck to paycheck. the last thing they need is another brazen attack on their

pocketbooks from a health care law they don't want, they didn't ask for, and that doesn't work for them. through this administration's ad hoc implementation of obamacare, some people won't have to pay the penalty, but others will. ere's who i'm concerned about. and the bill before us today protects. the single mom who for whatever reason ended up without insurance for several months. she doesn't need a new tax bill from uncle sam for hundreds of dollars because she can't access the coverage that washington says she must. she could use that money to pay the heating bill or buy groceries for her children. all americans, not just some, but all americans deserve a delay from the punishing financial penalties of the president's health care law. this is our chance to make it happen. with the legislation before us today, no one in this country

would be forced to pay the individual mandate tax in 2014. this is an opportunity to stop the political games and put working americans first. let's stand together and support the simple fairness act in bipartisan fashion and give our constituents some relief from the financial burdens of obamacare. i'd like to thank chairman dave camp and representative lynn jenkins for their hard work on this issue and on behalf of working americans. i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, could you give us the time? the speaker pro tempore: you have 12 minutes. mr. mcdermott: the republicans? the speaker pro tempore: 15 minutes. mr. mcdermott: i reserve.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from kansas. missening -- ms. jenkins: i would like to the two minutes to chairman of the republican committee, mr. steve scalise. mr. scalise: i thank the gentlelady from kansas for her leadership on this bill i'm proud to co-sponsor. this is providing fairness for hardworking taxpayers. if you look how the president's health care law is being implemented, mr. speaker, you've got the president literally saying he's going to give exemption after exemption after exemption to the political class, to a select few who have special interest protections here in washington. that the president by the way has said big businesses can get exemptions from obamacare. the prs has said -- president has said insurance companies can get exemptions from obamacare. then when it comes to hardworking taxpayers, families out there struggling under the weight of this law, the president says no. you can't have that same exemption that he's given to

everybody else. so what we are saying here, mr. speaker, is if these exemptions are good enough for big businesses, and if these exemptions are good enough for insurance companies, shouldn't they also be good enough for hardworking taxpayers who are struggling in this bad economy that the president's given us, and under the weight of this unworkable law that the president himself is acknowledging is unworkable by giving all these exemptions away to everybody else? now, if you look at the law, mr. speaker, the president doesn't have the legal authority to just waive a law, to literally take out a pen and change the law. what the president does have is the ability to work with us in congress in a bipartisan way, which when you look at the vote on this bill it will be bipartisan in support of giving these hardworking taxpayers that same exemption, but this law, obamacare, is built on a foundation of broken promises. if you like what you have, you can keep it. of course it's probably the most broken promise in political history. but there's more, the president said insurance costs will be

lowerment insurance costs are higher for families. the president even said he'll meet with anybody who has a better idea. we do have a better idea, mr. speaker. over 120 members of congress, including medical doctors, have co-sponsored the american health care reform act. we took the president up on his promise now almost three months ago and the president has refused to fulfill that promise of meeting with anybody who has a better idea. he won't even sit down and talk with us about a better idea to put patients back in charge of health care. there is a better way. we ought to treat people fairly. this bill does it. i urge cooperation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from kansas reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: is the lady from kansas ready to close? ms. jenkins: i see no other speakers, so i'm prepared to close. mr. mcdermott: i have one member in transit. let me say a few things until he gets here. i listened to this and i've been in congress 25 years, and i have

listened to republicans talk about what we ought to do about health care. and they have never brought a bill to the committee, chairman's mark, for us to mark up and bring out on the floor. now, if you have a solution for the fact that health care costs re you biggest costs driving bankruptcy in this country, where is it? you don't like what you have here. now, when i was younger, i lived through the implementation of medicare. american medical association and everybody was just up and down and it was the worst thing. if we put in medicare, that was going to be the end of the world and we never would have health care in this country and

we went on and on about that. they so poisoned the well that when people went out to recruit people to get in the medicare program people said, i am not going to have none of that socialistic medicine in my house. because that's what it was called. that's what people were doing in 1964 and 1965. this is a rerun of that very same movie. the republicans want to kill the idea and leave the american people out there on their own. it is -- it is probably the single best example of the difference between the republicans and the democrats. the democrats have put something out here and we're trying to help all americans. is it perfect? this isn't anybody on my side who had' say it was. we had some -- who'd say it was. we had some hearings. there's all types of problems out there.

but there hasn't been any hearings on this bill, how to fix it. i talked to bill frist some months ago. he said, jim, there's no reason to repeal it. you ought to fix it, make it work. make it work for the american people. one of the interesting things that i hear out here over and over again, it must be confusing to folks at home. the president said if you like our health care you can keep it. , the t will still exist president didn't say, i'm going to tell the insurance companies you got to keep those plans out there. that wouldn't be the -- that wouldn't be the free enterprise system. what you have, you don't like the free enterprise system. as soon as the president passed this bill, immediately we had people in the insurance industry pulling down plans all over the country, sending out

mailings saying you lost your health care coverage. i sometimes wonder if global warming isn't really -- climate change is really not because of obama's health care. i hear it's the cause of every evil. people losing jobs. people -- i don't know. whatever's going on in the country, it's because of obamacare. that's foolishness. when you try and change a program for 20 million or 30 million people, you are bound to have some problems, and we're having them and we're working them out and it was awful at the beginning. it's better now, and it's better today than it was three months ago and it will be. it will continue to improve because the american people need it. they absolutely need it. and the foolishness of coming out here and trying again to convince the american people, if we just got rid of this -- i had a woman in my district who was an opera singer. she went to germany.

she got on the german health care system. instantly, boom, you're in. anybody who goes to germany's in, and her daughter got leukemia. her daughter was treated for leukemia and got into remission and the mother finished her contract and came home to the united states. she could not find an insurance company anyplace in this country that would give her insurance for her daughter. none. now, that's what you want to go back to. you want to go back to the time when a parent can't find an insurance company that will take care of their kid, and that's the kind of thing we've been watching for as long as i've been in congress and before that. nd this bill has begun to stop that. we had lifetime limits. some cancers eat up a lot of money real quickly. bone marrow transplants,

$125,000 or more. and people wind up unable to purchase the medication. all of that is covered by this bill, and you're saying to people, no, we want to go back to 1930. we like the dust bowl. we like the hard times of the 1930's. we don't want any of this stuff. and in my view this is a perfect place for democrats to vote no and republicans, of course, will vote yes and the american people will make a judgment in the next election. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from kansas is recognized. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. speaker. this bill is about fairness and providing relief to all hardworking americans. just as the administration keeps giving to businesses. it's about leveling the playing field for the millions of individuals and middle-class families who are forced to comply with this health care law. just last week a stunning poll found that only 6% americans

claim obamacare is working and want it kept intact. opposition to this law is at an all-time high, and even the president admitted that the launch of this law was fumbled. add that to the millions of americans who are losing their health insurance that they liked, losing access to the doctors they've always seen, submitting their personal data to an unsecure system, paying higher premiums, they can't afford them. clearly we have a law that is not working and is not fair to the american people. the court of public opinion is a powerful thing. the house will listen and will continue to listen and will continue to provide relief and fairness to middle-class families. i hope the senate and the president will also do the right thing for the american people and with that, mr. speaker, i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back.

all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 497, the previous question is ordered on the bill. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. hose in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to delay the implementation of the penalty for failure to comply with the individual ealth insurance mandate. >> mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. horsford: i am in the current form. the clerk: mr. horsford of nevada moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 4118, to the committee on ways and means with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment -- add at the end the

following new section. section 3, protecting consumers from premium increases and discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. nothing in this act shall be construed to alter, impact, delay or weaken. one, section 1402 of the patient protection and affordable care act that reduces out-of-pocket costs and cost sharing for individuals and families. two, sections 1001 and 1401 of such act that provides tax credits and rebates for health insurance or, three, section 1201 of such act that prohibits discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions and gender. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. ms. jenkins: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas rise? ms. jenkins: mr. speaker, i reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

the speaker pro tempore: a point of order is reserved. the gentleman from nevada is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. horsford: thank you, mr. speaker. this is the final amendment to the bill which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as amended. this republican bill represents the 50th attempt to undermine and repeal the affordable care act. the democratic motion to recommit lowers out-of-pocket costs, secures tax credits and rebates and ensures no discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions. the bill would delay the individual responsibility provision of the affordable care act to purchase health care by one year, which would directly impact the out-of-pocket costs to consumers and threaten the ability of millions of americans with pre-existing conditions to have health

coverage. the nonpartisan c.b.o. estimates that enactment of the republican h.r. 4118 would increase the number of uninsured by one million in 2014, two million in 2015 and one million in 2016. that's four million americans who would not have access to health insurance otherwise. the white house pointed out this morning that the individual shared responsibility provision is essential to ensuring that 129 million americans with pre-existing conditions can get coverage without being charged more or losing coverage when they get sick. mr. speaker, this bill is just another example of house republicans playing political games rather than working together to get things done for the american people. this is no longer about helping people. it never really was for the

republicans. these repeal votes are about ideological purity. they're about politics for the sake of politics, and that is why people across america are frustrated and disappointed by this congress. because this chamber has become a bubble, and republicans have stopped listening and stopped working on anything productive. and it's not just on health care. it's on giving americans a raise by increasing the federal minimum wage. it's a refusal to bring up comprehensive immigration reform, even though there are votes in the house to pass it. it's on unemployment insurance and the failure of this congress to extend benefits to now more than two million americans who've lost coverage. it's about creating jobs and helping to improve and grow our infrastructure. now, this vote may seem routine. it may seem like this is just congress' continuing groundhog day, but this is the 50th time that we've done this.

we're wasting time, and we have a full docket of things that we need to be doing. this bill is a symptom of something very wrong in washington, and it's time to wake up and do something more than play tea party politics in this house. the bill, offered by my colleagues on the other side, would increase out-of-pocket costs to american consumers. it would increase health premiums and the number of uninsured americans and it hurts those with pre-existing conditions. six wave underwent bypass open heart surgery. open heart surgery, no question, was terrifying, and when you're on an operating table in an emergency room, the last thing you should be focusing on is becoming medically bankrupt. you should be focusing on taking care of yourself and your family on getting them the best care that you can.

and whether it's heart disease, ancer, diabetes or any other pre-existing condition, people shouldn't go bankrupt because of an illness or a disease in this country. thankfully my surgery went well. i was able to afford it. my heart condition is now a pre-existing condition, and there are thousands of my constituents who are in the same or worse boat but are not financially well-off. if we repeal or delay the affordable care act, what are they supposed to do? there's no solution being offered by the house republicans. it's not repeal and replace. it's repeal and return to a broken health care system. that's it. that's the republicans' plan. last year they passed h.r. 2668, a virtually identical bill to the one we're considering today. they've run out of ways to repeal this law, so now we're

stuck on repeat. we should instead be focusing on renewing unemployment insurance benefits for two million struggling americans. passing comprehensive immigration reform so we can fix the system that's got families torn apart and giving 30 million americans a raise. my motion to recommit would protect three of the most important provisions of the affordable care act that are overwhelmingly supported by the american people. lower out-of-pocket costs for consumers, tax credits and rebates to purchase health care and ensuring that no one in america can be denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition in america. it's time for this congress to wake up and do the right thing and protect americans and their health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from kansas rise? ms. jenkins: mr. speaker, i rewithdraw my point of order and seek time in opposition to the motion.

the speaker pro tempore: the reservation is withdrawn. the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. jenkins: thank you, mr. speaker. once again, the democrats are simply missing the point. the president is the one who has delayed the employer mandate. the president has said this law is not ready. and the president has declined to ex tends the same flexibility to individuals. this is about basic fairness. it is only fair that hardworking taxpayers are given the same treatment as businesses, like so many other been delayed, repealed or declared unworkable, this is just another example that despite the administration's promises, obamacare is not working for the american people. i reject this motion. please support h.r. 4118. and i yield back the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the motion is not agreed to. mr. horsford: mr. speaker, i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 4118, if ordered, and the motion to suspend the rules with regard to h.r. 2126. this is a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 185 and the nays are 227. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he noes have it. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? mr. mcdermott: the yeas and nays, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 250rks the nays are 16 -- 250, the nays are 160. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from connecticut, mr.

whitfield, to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 2126 as amended on which the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 2126, a bill to facilitate better alignment, cooperation and best practices between commerce real estate landlords and tenants regarding energy efficiency in buildings and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 375. the nays are 46. 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended.

for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous materials on h.r. 3826. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. whitfield: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. waxman: the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will be in order.

pursuant to house resolution 497 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3826. the chair appoints the gentleman from nebraska, mr. fortenberry, to preside over he committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 3826 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to provide direction to the administrator of the environmental protection agency regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any greenhouse gas from fossil fuel-fired electric and y generating units for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as read the first time. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and the

gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman will suspend. he house will come to order. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: thank you, mr. speaker. and i rise this afternoon in support of h.r. 3826, electricity security and affordability act. recently a congressional law professor at george washington university, named jonathan turley, issued a dire warning. now, professor turley said he

voted for president obama in the last election, that he agrees philosophically with president obama on many issues, but he said that if left unchecked the u.s. president could effectively become a government onto himself. now, he was referring that this president has been overly aggressive in the use of executive orders and regulations through various governmental agencies to accomplish his political goals. and the reason that we are here today is with this legislation, it is our hope that we can overturn one of the most extreme regulations of the obama administration. in january of next year, it is anticipated that they will finalize a rule from e.p.a. that will make it impossible to build a new coal power plant in

america. now, that's hard to believe that that can be the situation in our great country, particularly since 40% of our electricity comes from coal. the reason that it will be impossible to build a new coal power plant because of these new e.p.a. regulations is the fact that the emission standards have been set so high , and i might add that it's pretty clear that those emission standards, the way they were set, violates the energy security act of 2005. we've written a letter to e.p.a. setting out our concerns. they still have not responded to us. we've talked to lawyers throughout the country who are ready to file a lawsuit if this happens because it's impossible to believe that the three plants in america that they use to set the emission standards

for coal fired plants, none of them are in existence today. none of them are operating today. so our legislation, we believe, is a reasonable approach to a serious problem in america. i might add that 41 out of 50 states last year indicated that their electricity rates have gone up under the obama administration. now, i know that the president is greatly concerned about the less fortunate in our society. he's talked a lot about the minimum wage bill, for example, but these electricity rates going up hit the most vulnerable in our society the most, particularly those on fixed incomes. and yet it is his policies that are driving up these electricity costs. so the legislation that we have on the floor today is very simple.

first of all, it acknowledges for the first time by legislation that e.p.a. can regulate grown house gases. this bill -- greenhouse gases. this bill goes further than any bill has. you can regulate greenhouse gases. the unit must be in operation for a period of time, must be commercially available to the utilities to buy it as opposed to the proposed regulation in which the technology is simply not available. so our legislation, as i said, we don't anticipate a new coal power plant to be built anytime soon in america because our natural gas prices are so low. but in europe, which has acknowledged is the green sector of the world, they moth balled 30 gigawatts of gas power plants in the last 20 months because the gas prices

coming from russia are so expensive that it's raising their electricity rates to such an extent that it's damaging the area. so with our legislation, if those gas prices go up, an option available to the american people, to the american utility sector is they can go out and build a coal power plant with reasonable regulation. and then the second thing our legislation does -- and when i say our i'm talking about senator joe manchin, a democrat from west virginia, has introduced this bill in the u.s. bill, i, along with democratic support, were able to get it out of the energy and commerce committee and so this debate is vitally important today because the president is going so fast in such an extreme way that will make it impossible to use coal in america with a new plant, and we've never had a national debate on the issue.

soed to we can at least have this -- so today we can at least have this debate. the second thing this legislation does, applies to existing plants, e.p.a. said they're going to regulate existing coal plants, and we say go ahead and do it, set the standards, but congress will set the effective date for that regulation. so it's a very simple piece of legislation, one that i think is necessary to protect the american people and to ensure that america remains competitive in the global marketplace. in might also say that addition to that, i want to make one other comment. emissions from the energy sector in america is the lowest o-2 -- co-2 myre missions is the low -- emissions is the lowest. so we won't take a backseat to standards and emissions and

with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. chairman, kofi annan, the former secretary general of the united nations, wrote in the "washington post" earlier this year, quote, climate change is the biggest challenge of our time. it threatens the well-being of hundreds of millions of people today and many billions more in time, end quote. robert ruben, the former treasury secretary said recently, quote, there are a lot of really significant monumental issues facing the global economy, but this supersedes them all, end quote. the energy and commerce committee's the committee in

the house that has the power to tackle this monumental issue. the biggest challenge of our time. but we are missing in action. instead of listening to the scientists and working on a bipartisan basis to protect the planet for our children and future generations, we're considering today a science-denial bill that would strip the a.p.a. -- e.p.a. of authority to stop dangerous carbon pollution. the longtime chairman of the energy and commerce committee, john dingell, is famous for -- famously known for pointing to a photo of the earth, which i have here to the right, to describe the committee's jurisdiction. under his leadership, the committee was known for listening to the experts, tackling the toughest problems and crafting responsible

science-based policies, but today we need a new symbol to represent what we are doing. the energy and commerce committee has joined the flat earth society. we're considering a very similar bill. we considered a very similar bill to this one last congress, and here's what nature, one of the world's leading science journals said at the time, quote, misinformation was presented as fact. truth was twisted and nobody showed any inclination to listen to scientists, let alone learn from them. it has been an embarrassing display, not just for the republican party, but also for congress and the u.s. citizens it represents. it's hard to escape the conclusion that the u.s. congress has entered into

intellectual wilderness, the flat earth society. the united states is a major contributor to climate change. it cannot be stopped without us. we have a moral responsibility to act, but the republican majority has brought a bill to the floor that does just the opposite. it makes the problem worse by preventing e.p.a. from acting. if we pass this terrible bill, we will vote to let china leap ahead of us in the race to build the clean energy economy or the future. and we will be ignoring our moral obligation to protect the planet for our children and grandchildren. as you might have guessed, i strongly oppose this bill. future generations will be appalled that we are considering it today. coal-fired power plants are the largest single source of carbon

pollution in the country. today there's no limit on how much carbon pollution these power plants can emit. that's why president obama directed the environmental protection agency to use its existing authority under law, under the clean air act, to require power plants to control carbon pollution. the e.p.a. has proposed a rule to require new coal plants to use available control pollution technology to capture and sequester carbon. for existing coal plants, e.p.a.'s working with stakeholders to think through the best approach. but h.r. 3826, the bill under consideration today, would stop

e.p.a. from issuing any rules and allow these plants to continue to keep emitting unlimited amounts of carbon pollution. republicans complain they don't like e.p.a.'s approach. but they won't even admit climate change is a problem. much less accept the president's invitation to work together on a solution. instead they want to pass a bill to deny the problem, block e.p.a. action and weaken the clean air act. my message to my republican colleagues is simple. if you don't like what e.p.a. is doing, tell us your plan. if you have other ideas for reducing carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, let's hear about them. but if you don't, you can step aside and let the president lead. today is an embarrassing day for our committee on energy and commerce and the u.s. house of

representatives, if this bill is to be passed. and i hope that does not come about. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: yes, sir. at this time i would yield three minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, the majority whip, mr. mccarthy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. mr. chairman, in 2008, in an interview with the san francisco chronicle, president obama warned us that under his policies for energy, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket. now, it appears high electricity costs, that this is a promise that the president chose to keep. today millions of americans are suffering from one of the coldest winlters in recent memory -- win thers in recent memory and in some cases -- winters in recent memory and in some cases the most expensive. in some homes in new york heating bills are doubling.

but it doesn't have to be this way. the u.s. is currently enjoying a revolution in energy production. the energy that heats our homes and keeps us warm during the cold winter nights. americans across this country should be celebrating this breakthrough. in an economy where the nation income today is lower than in the year 2000, abundant energy should provide a sense of relief to strained budgets. but because of this administration's policies, americans are simply left out in the cold with their energy bills. first, the democrats tried cap and trade. but that failed in a democrat-led congress. now this administration has proposed arguably the most expensive regulation ever by the e.p.a. one that would render the construction of any future coal power plant impossible. through the mandating of technology that isn't readily obtainable. today coal accounts for 37% of total u.s. electricity production. the e.p.a.'s regulation will

cost approximately 1,200 per household per year in -- $1,200 per household per year in lost income. but most importantly this regulation will cause the greatest amount of harm, lost jobs, diminished incomes and igher electricity bills. it isn't the rich on fifth avenue or in beverly hills that will be impacted, it's earn the american working class -- it's the -- it's america's working class. places like ohio's fourth district or the first district, home to chairman ryan, or even wisconsin's second or iowa's first district, both represented by my colleagues from the other side and all will be unnecessarily hurt by this regulation. for all the talk about fairness, this regulation is profoundly unfair. the electricity, security and

affordability act sponsored by my friend rejects the administration's backdoor tax on americans' energy bill. this legislation restores opportunity and fairness by ensuring more americans' paychecks do not unnecessarily go to expanding electricity and heating costs. mr. chairman, at a time when energy production is booming, the cost for families should be dropping, not rising. i suppose the president actually held true to another promise. he has promised an all-of-the-above energy policy, i'd hope that is from all sources. i urge my colleagues to reject the president's plan for higher energy costs and support this legislation and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, the previous speaker said that heating

because he has not adopted any regulations through e.p.a. the bill before us would stop any regulations from being adopted under current law. they would say nothing could be adopted in the future. the chairman of the subcommittee on energy made the statement, no coal power plants are being proposed. yet what he's also suggesting is that we not allow them to be built in the future, should they want to be built, in a way that would reduce the pollution of carbon. what's unfair? it seems to me what is unfair is that coal-burning power plants can burn all the coal they want and put out all the pollution they want and we're allowing it, even though everyone is suffering from the consequences. so i find it amazing to hear

the arguments one one coal-burn power plants -- arguments, one, coal-burning power plants are not going to be built, on the other hand, we're already paying higher prices and nothing has been passed by the e.p.a. and put into effect. at this time i want to yield five minutes to my colleague from california, mr. mcnerney. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mcnerney: i want to thank the ranking member for yielding five minutes. and i want to talk a little bit about this bill, h.r. 3826. basically from where i can see, h.r. 3826 will essentially prevent the e.p.a. from limiting coal-fired power plant emissions, including health-dangering pollution as well as carbon. we're all interested in health but i want to talk about carbon pollution. climate change is one of the most important national issues we face right now and the evidence for climate change is whosming. whether it's superstorms -- overwhelming. whether it's superstorms that are occurring more regularly now, whether it's

record-changing droughts, whether it's migration patterns of biological systems, melting of the polar ice caps and a related issue to carbon emissions is ocean acidification, all of these current phenomenon a very dangerous and very threatening. the leading scientists of this nation and around the world agree that this is a threat, that it's a problem. in fact, about 97% of climate scientists believe this is a problem. and the predictions and the models for the climate sciences are horrifying enough. but unfortunately actual measurements and actual predictions and happenings are worse than the predictions -- than the actual models are predicting. so we're facing a very dangerous situation and i ask my colleagues, why are you willing to take this risk? climate change is a very big problem. it's a very big risk. 97% of scientists agree that it's a risk. and yet we're going to say, well, it's not really a risk, we can worry about that later.

no. we have to worry about it right now, today. the good news out there is that this carbon captured sequester technology is coming along -- sequestration technology is coming along pretty well. what this bill would do, unfortunately, is prevent carbon sequestration technologies from being adopted in power plants. t i submit that allowing carbon sequestration technology to be developed is in the interests of the coal industry. if the technology is developed and climate change keeps happening, which it is, then the public is going to demand that we incorporate climate change, carbon sequestration technology, and if it's not there then coal plants are going to be shut down. so now when we have the opportunity and technology is being developed, there's money being spent by the federal government, by private industry to develop carbon-captured

sequestration, let's go ahead and take advantage of that, implement it in our power plants on a limited basis now so that when the need is there, it will be available. i don't understand why that is being ignored. but h.r. 3826 ignores that and other possibilities. it prohibblets us from using -- prohibblets us from using exist -- prohibits us from using existing carbon capture products in the united states from implementing that technology in coal-fired power plants. we must take advantage of this technology. we must take advantage of it in the united states and abroad. we shouldn't prevent the development of this technology. this technology is improving, it's being more cost effective and it's being more effective technologically. it's in the best interests again of the coal -- long-term coal industry, and i strongly urge opposition to this bill.

with that i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i would just reiterate that america doesn't have to take a backseat to anyone on its emissions from energy sources. our emissions today are lower than they were 20 years ago. why should the u.s. unilaterally take this extreme position and other countries around the world, particularly in europe and in asia, are using coal and using coal and we don't even have the flexibility to do that, when they finalize this rule? that's what we're up to today. at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. rothfus, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for two minutes. mr. rothfus: mr. chairman, many families and businesses have had to spend more to heat their homes this cold and snowy winter. unfortunately regulations recently introduced by unelected elites and president obama's e.p.a. will increase the utility and electric bills

further. these regulations effectively ban new power plants by forcing them to meet an emissions standard that cannot be achieved with any commercially available technology. they are unworkable and unaffordable and will result in more lost jobs. i stand in solidarity with the hardworking coal miners, power plant workers, steel workers, boilermakers, carpenters and truck drivers. but the victims of the president's war on affordable energy are the families and businesses whose energy costs are skyrocketing and the workers who are losing their jobs and incomes because of these regulations. i strongly support h.r. 3826, the electricity security and affordability act. the bill will direct the e.p.a. to adopt new coal-fired power plant emission standards that make sense and subject any new regulations on existing power plants to congressional review where the people's representatives can be held

accountable. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to approve this job-saving bill. i thank the chairman and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, house republicans are telling us greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the united states. they suggest the u.s. doesn't need to do anything more about climate change. but they couldn't be more wrong . a couple of years ago, when the utilities were switching out of coal and going to natural gas, because natural gas was cheaper, we saw some leveling off of those emissions. but what matters most is whether the u.s. emissions are on track to decline in the future by the amount needed to prevent dangerous climate change. scientists say we need to reduce carbon pollution by 80% by 2050, but we'll not get anywhere near that level of reductions if we go about business as usual and stop

e.p.a. from acting and congress doing nothing to respond to this emergency. i'd like to yield at this time four minutes to the gentlelady from california, a member of our committee, mrs. capps. the chair: the gentlelady from california is recognized for four minutes. . mrs. capps: i thank my colleague for yielding. there's an argument on the other side of the aisle, we heard it a few moments ago that we shouldn't take action to hurt climate change because doing so would hurt poor people. it's a particularly galing statement because the truth is, the world's poorest have the most to lose if we don't take urgent action to cut carbon pollution. poor people are on the frontline of climate change. the world bank president said that unless we roll back, unless we address climatean could witn rolling back of decades of development gains and force tens

of millions more to live in poverty, end quote. according to the united nations development program, without coordinated global action to address climate and environmental threats, three billion more people could be pushed into extreme poverty by 2015. that's the reality. the world's poor education will be the most affected by the impacts of climate change, yet they have the fewest resources to adapt or respond to it. to hear the other side tell it, the only way to protect the health and well being of poor people is to weaken e.p.a.'s ability to cut carbon pollution and that's nonsense. it's time to stop denying the science and accept reality. we need to take action now to cut carbon pollution. the longer we wait, the higher the costs will be, especially for the poor. indeed, addressing climate change is in the economic self-interest of all of us. consider recent comments by robert ruben, a universally

respected treasury secretary. during his tenure, the deficit was redutioned from $290 billion to $70 billion. the dow jones industrials more than tripled, unemployment decreased and more than 18 million new jobs were created. senator bob dole described secretary reuben as a man of honesty and integrity. alan greenspan called him one of the most respected treasury secretaries in history. when he retired in 1999, secretary reuben received glowing reports from democrats and republicans alike. here's what he said about climate change a few weeks ago. and i quote. there are a lot of significant monumental issues facing the global economy, but this one supersedes all else. experts are telling us inaction on climate change threatens the global economy. responding to this threat isn't

about disadvantaging ourselves, it's about seizing opportunity. there are already 143,000 solar jobs and 80,000 wind jobs in the united states. winning the global clean energy race will mean millions of jobs and faster economic growth. competitors in china and europe understand this. we risk being left behind if we don't recognize it as well. we should abandon this bill and start getting serious about climate change and the economy. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california yields back the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. >> may i ask how much time is remaining on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has 19 minutes remain, the gentleman from california has 16 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: at this time, i recognize the gentlelady from indiana, mrs. walorski, for two

minutes. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. walorski: i appreciate mr. whitfield's leadership on this bill. this bill addresses president obama's sweeping proposed rules for new power plants which sets emission standards so strict that the creation of a new coal-fired power plant is virtually impossible. indiana is the backbone of manufacturing in america. but manufacturing depends on affordable energy. more than 80% of indiana's electricity is coal powered and electricity rates in indiana are expected to rise 32% by 2023, partly due to these e.p.a. regulations. if president obama is able to implement his radical environmental agenda, energy prices could skyrocket, having a devastating impact on economic growth and job creating, hurting hoosiers trying to pay their bills. this bill provides a commonsense way to protect our environment by setting emissions standards

that are actually achieveable. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from indiana yields back. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. rahall: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the ranking member yielding me this time, especially since we do not see eye to eye on this particular piece of legislation. we do see eye to eye on numerous other issues before the congress and the american people, such as protecting the health and safety of our nation's coal miners and our american workers, and indeed, we all, both sides of the aisle, share the common goal of wanting to provide clean water, clean air, and health and safety for our families each and every day of the year. in that sense, we all have that common ground. there is a fear, though, in the

coal fields today and i really wish the distinguished majority whip on that side of the aisle had mentioned my home state of west virginia, one of the largest coal producing states in the country, when he mentioned and was going district by district about the various people going to be affected by these proposed regulations. but i do rise in support of h.r. 3826 as a co-sponsor and i comment my coal country colleague, ed whitfield, for his leadership on this issue, bringing it through his committee. those of us from the coal-producing regions of the country have truly become sick and tired, sick and tired, of this e.p.a. churning out anti-coal regulations while showing little or no appreciation of how these regulations will affect the lives and livelihoods of the real people who have to work and live under them. are proposals,me but i remind my colleaguesing it

strikes fear, it strikes fear in the very heart and soul of coal country and many of our coal countries that are laying off workers as we speak have this fear of what's coming down the pipe as a main factor in laying off workers today. granted, there are many other factors affecting the current slump in the coal fields. i don't deny that for one minute. but we have been frustrated. frustrated with an e.p.a. that has time after time and time again pushed out piles of guidance documents, regulations, using slanted science and inflating claims about the benefits of their regulatory agenda without any consideration , one iota, of the effects upon job the effects upon jobs in the real america that their regulatory agenda means. last september, when the e.p.a. proposed regulations for future power plants, it did so hinged on the promise that the

technologies required to achieve the new standards were proven and ready. based on this claim, we have to question whether this e.p.a. is using good, sound science or if it is picking and choosing science that sounds good to meet whatever ends the agency desires. there are no power plants, there are no power plants in commercial service anywhere in the world that have installed and operated the c.c.s. technologies necessary to comply with the proposed rules. none. nada. the proposed greenhouse gas rule for new power plants may be the mother of all anti-coal -- may i have one additional minute? mr. max wan: i yield the gentleman one minute. mr. rahall: i thank the gentleman again. the proposed rule may be the mother of all anti-coal regulatory measures so far promoted by this e.p.a. it spells curtains for the development of new coal-fired capacity in this country,

meaning decreased energy reliability and increased costs for american families and businesses. what's more the agency admits that the new regulations will have nearly zero impact on the emissions of greenhouse gas as economies around the globe continue to grow their use of coal power. that's why this regulation is so important, it would block the e.p.a. from unilaterally imposing these caps, requiring any such efforts to be approved by congress, and it would set goals for c.c.s. technologies required for to the provide energy throughout the foreseeable future. for those of us in coal country this legislation is fundamental to preserving the jobs of our coal miners, those who work hard every day going into the bowels of the earth to provide our energy and energy security for the united states. i urge support of this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the gentleman from kentucky is

recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from illinois, mr. davis. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. davis: thank you, mr. speaker. my thanks also to mr. whitfield, my colleague from kentucky, and also my thanks to my colleague who i'm lucky to follow, mr. rahall of west virginia, for talking about such an important issue to my district in central illinois. one of the reasons i am here, mr. speaker, is because i saw the devastation, the largest employer in my home county, 20 years ago, closed down because of a signature on a piece of paper here in washington, d.c. peabody mine number 10 shut down and coal mining families, families whose children i went to school with, grew up with, were forced to move to get a job. now we see this attack via the e.p.a. on coal in middle america once again. and i came here today with my colleagues to say this bill is a

commonsense plo posal that's going to restrict the e.p.a.'s ability to overreach and cost families, all families, even the poorest families in this country, it's going to cost them more out of their family fwouget turn the light switch on. it's going to cost jobs in my district at existing coal-fired power plants that are some of the best jobs in central illinois. they're organized labor jobs. this is about jobs, this is about the economy, and this is about low cost power that allows our economy to grow. that's what we all want, mr. speaker. isn't it? i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i want to point out that the speakers in favor of this bill describe themselves as part of the coal-producing regions of the country. they are representing, they say, the coal-producing regions of

the country because they fear if the coal industry had to use some technology that would reduce carbon emissions, that would cost jobs. now i want to dispute that in two respects. one, they claim that no one is using this technology and that's not accurate. in fact, the control technology is already in effect, being used commercially in the united states for decades. there are seven large commercial c.c.s., that's carbon capture and sequestration projects, operating today and dr. julio freedman, the deputy assistant secretary for clean coal at the u.s. department of energy, recently testified, quote, first generation c.c.s. technology is commercially available today. so why are they worried about jobs? well, they're being told by the

coal miners that if they have to use a technology that costs money, that would raise the price of coal and therefore coal will lose out to other technologies. well that hasn't been the case. i've been in congress for 40 years. i remember the coal industry coming in and saying, if we have to put scrubbers on, we'll we'll go broke. they'll never burn coal again. the coal industry uses scrubbers, right now. the cost of scrubbers has gone down. they overstated how much it would cost. they cried about the lost jobs. it didn't happen. the other thing i want to point out is that they talk about the coal jobs that will be lost. coal jobs are being lost now because the utilities realize they can burn natural gas.

it's cheaper. so coal is losing out in the market. if natural gas is cheaper than burning coal now, they're going to burn natural gas. that's called the market. it's like cars replacing horse and buggies. but the reality is that coal is going to be able to compete if we have new technologies imposed on them, just as they have been able to compete in the future. they can -- they can't compete if they're expensive so they have to figure out ways to produce coal that's less expensive. that may happen. but we shouldn't subsidize coal to compete by having the world have to deal with carbon pollution. we decided years ago we weren't going to help coal compete by poisoning people with toxic mercury pollution when we required they use the technology to stop toxic mercury pollution.

we decided they had to use scrubbers. they said they'd go broke, couldn't afford it. people would lose their jobs. we required it because it reduced pollution that harmed people. carbon pollution harms people. and this planet. if we see the impact of climate change continue because we refuse to require them to use less carbon and spew it out into the atmosphere. let me just say, you don't have to buy all the arguments on climate change, but consider his -- if there's a 10% chance that carbon pollution is going to cause greenhouse gases and climate change and do all the terrible things that the scientists overwhelmingly tell us will happen, if there's a 10% chance, how many people want to

take that 10% chance on the only atmosphere that we share on this planet? . i know the coal people say they're willing to take that chance. they're afraid their constituents will turn against them. because the coal plants or coal can companies will tell them to -- coal companies will tell them to turn against them. they may lose their next election. i don't think that's the case. but that's their fear. they're speaking for fear. they're speaking from a fear of jobs being lost. but that hasn't been the experience under the clean air act and we shouldn't repeal the clean air act now as it relates to giving the e.p.a. the authority to regulate these coal-burning power plants. mr. chairman, i want to reserve the balance of my time. i don't know if we're ready to close yet. so we'll reserve the balance of our time at this moment and

then we'll pick up using our time as others have a chance to speak. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: mr. speaker, i might just make a comment. i can assure you we're not speaking from fear today. i can assure you we're not being parochial about coal. coal is still the base load for this country's manufacturing, industrial use, electricity at home and our ability to compete in the world. i have great admiration and respect for the gentleman from california and i'm sorry that he's made a decision to leave congress after a distinguished career. but i can tell you there is no power plant operating in america today using carbon -captured sequestration because the technology is not available. now, there are some plants being built with government support, would not be built without that government support, but they're not in operation.

there's a difference when scrubbers were mandated by e.p.a. scrubbers were already being put in plants at private expense. the government didn't pay for those scrubbers. they were already being in use. unlike this proposed regulation, there is no technology available to meet the emission standard. so there's a significant difference in what has happened and what is being proposed. at this time i'd like to recognize the distinguished chairman of the full energy and commerce committee, mr. upton of michigan, for three minutes. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for three minutes. mr. upton: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, today we're going to continue our pursuit of an all-of-the-above energy strategy, taking up legislation would rust e.p.a.'s plans. the latest threat by the obama administration to aforledble and reliable energy -- affordable and reliable energy. while the president may boast a support for an all-of-the-above strategy, their policies have

been anything but. the president's approach seeks to limit our energy choices, jeopardizes jobs, raises energy costs and indeed threatens america's global competitiveness. our nation has become the envy of the world because of recent breakthroughs unlocking vast amounts of oil and natural gas. but the game-changing developments do not give cause to regulate an entire fuel category out of the mix, gone. especially a resource that comprises today 40% of the fuel that provides affordable electricity for millions of americans and countless job creators. given that the u.s. has the world's largest coal reserves and is the largest producer of coal, it should remain a critical contributor to a diverse electricity portfolio for decades to come. and we should proudly embrace that we are the saudi arabia of coal reserves. fuel diversity gives us the

flexibility to keep electricity costs low and ensure reliability, particularly for the most vulnerable. as we've heard from many witnesses and hearings, the coal-fired power plant shutdowns already under way pose a serious threat to reliability in many regions, particularly in the midwest, and that threat will continue to get worse if these shutdowns increase in the years ahead while we limit our options for new baseload power. in some, fuel diversity gives us a more stable, more reliable and affordable electricity supply. and any threat to coal, including e.p.a.'s pending rules, is a threat to that diversity and a threat to affordable energy. i applaud chairman whitfield, both, for this bipartisan, bicameral approach. working together. their legislation is a good-faith effort that requires a critical check on e.p.a.'s misuse of the clean air act to try to accomplish through

regulation what was rejected by congress through legislation. their approach does not prohibit e.p.a. from setting the standard for new plants, but instead focuses on setting standards that have been adequately demonstrated, a key ingredient missing from e.p.a.'s regulatory proposal. just in the last two weeks, as was indicated, we heard testimony from administration officials that carbon-capture technologies wrirks not yet commercially -- which are not yet commercially viable could increase electricity costs by perhaps as much as 80%. this important legislation provides a role for congress in seth the effective day -- in setting the effective day for any regulation of any existing plant. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky rembs. the gentleman from california is recognized -- reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. the gentleman from california has seven minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has 12 minutes remaining. mr. waxman: i'm going to

reserve our time. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman rens ay. mr. mr. renacci: the united states is fortunate to have more coal than any other country in the world. this vital resource is currently used to meet nearly half of our electricity needs and support over 550,000 jobs. as a representative of ohio, a state that produces more than 24 million tons of coal per year, and uses it to generate over 50% of our electricity, i understand firsthand the importance of keeping this abundant and affordable natural resource a part of america's energy supply. unfortunately over the past five years, this administration's policies have led to the closure of hundreds of coal-fired plant as i cross the country -- plants across the country. in fact, in just one year,

ohio's coal-generated electricity dropped nearly 20% as a result of the current regulatory environment. the e.p.a.'s recent proposed greenhouse gas standards for new coal plants are only the latest example of the administration's regulatory assault on america's power sector. not only do these standards rely on a technology that is not even commercially viable at this point, they will also lead to lots of -- the loss of thousands of jobs and drive up the price of energy for american families and businesses that are already struggling to make ends meet. ohio alone stands to lose an estimated 18,000 manufacturing jobs by 2023 as a result of these overreaching regulations. more than 1,000 of these jobs will be in my district. these estimates do not even include job losses by coal miners, utility workers and all those impacted directly by plant closures. rising energy costs are one of the main problems facing many hardworking americans.

while we were all impacted by these rules, it is the most vulnerable citizens who unfortunately will be hit the hardest. it is the 387,000 ohioans living well below the poverty line and spend almost 30% of their income on energy costs that these standards will hurt the most. these standards are not just an attack on coal, they are an attack on those individuals who are having to choose between paying their electric bills and providing the basic necessities of their families. this bill before us offers realistic alternative to e.p.a.'s misguided and unachievable -- mr. whitfield: i yield the gentleman one additional minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. renacci: to regulating new and existing power plants. i applause representative whitfield's efforts on this critical piece of legislation and i urge my colleagues to support it. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: we continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: at this time i recognize the gentlelady from

indiana, congresswoman brooks, for two minutes. the chair: the gentlelady from indiana is recognized for two minutes. mrs. brooks: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today in support of h.r. 3826, because late last year the e.p.a. administrator went on a listening tour through america. to hear about -- from the public -- about reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. but unfortunately the administrator declined to come to those states most affected by the proposed regulations and instead opted to visit san francisco, seattle and boston. it's unfortunate that her stops didn't include places like my home state of indiana, which stands to lose much from these misguided regulations. because if mrs. mccarthy had visited indiana or states like indiana, she would have heard from people like ninaerson who wrote me an anxious letter about what penalizing the coal industry would do to families on fixed incomes she explained her church already has had to

help many families pay for their electric bill and she how her community will cope when the e.p.a.'s new regulations are enacted. i wish i could tell nina not to worry. but sadly her fears are very much warranted because the new regulations will have catastrophic impacts on our hoosier economy. the state utility forecasting group at perdue university has estimated that like ohio, indiana's electrical rates will increase 32% by 2023 because of e.p.a. rules. the price increase will hurt every hoosier that turns on a light switch and it will also cost up to 17,000 jobs in indiana, permanently ruin the prestige that our state enjoys as being one of the nation's most business-friendly states. that's why i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this important bill which finally puts the brakes on unchecked e.p.a. regulations and injects much-needed congressional oversight and consultation into the rulemaking agenda. we all have an obligation to leave the world a better place

for our children and future generations, but we can't do it when we take away jobs and hurt the economy. that's why i support this bill and i encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to recognize for two minutes, the gentleman from north dakota, mr. kramer, for his statement. the chair: the gentleman from north dakota is recognized for two minutes. mr. cramer: thank you, mr. airman, and thank you, chairman whitfield. everyone is familiar with the fact that north dakota has 25,000 job home openings with fewer than 10,000 people looking for work. it's not an accident. it helps for sure to have an 800-year supply of coal under the ground, to have some oil and some gas. but it also is an indication of a regulatory and tax climate that champions work, that champions investment, that doesn't apologize for having the lowest price electricity rates in the country most times of the year. we also have a robust

manufacturing economy as a result of those same policies. mr. chairman, i believe that america's economic security and america's national security depends on america's energy security. i would love to see every member of this body come to north dakota and see what that type of development looks like and i'd also like to have them breathe some of the cleanest air, see some of the cleanest water, some of the richest topsoil in the world. we're very proud of the fact that we can feed a hungry world while also meeting the growing demands of our economy. and if you really believe that there are several carbon-capture technology projects that are viable on power plants in this country, you should love this bill. because this bill actually prepares the standard for measuring that. it simply states that for 12 consecutive months, six power plants, six different units should be able to demonstrate it and three of them being what

we mine in north dakota. we don't have to compromise quality of life for a high standard of living. we don't do it in north dakota and we can replicate it across this country. but the e.p.a.'s overreach will hurt that. i think this bill actually helps that and i'm very proud of my colleague, mr. whitfield, for his bicameral, bipartisan approach to this problem and to the solution that you come up with and i urge all of my colleagues to vote for it. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. whitfield: will the gentleman tell us how much time we have remaining? i would reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. jasm california is recognized. mr. waxman: i want to say it was unfortunate to make a reference personally to the head of the environmental protection agency on her listening tour. the republicans have not allotted enough money to e.p.a. to let her go everywhere in the

country so she went to 10 regional offices as well as the washington a headquarters and invited people to come in and give their point of view. that is the full of amount -- full amount of money she had available to her. it would be unfair to criticize her for not going to every cranny in the coal country when she went to every part of the country had representation for their region. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to my colleague from the state of california, mr. peters. . the chair: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. peters: proponent -- opponents of the bill are arguing in part that e.p.a.'s plan to require controls under section 111 will hurt electric utilities but it was just last month in the utility air regulation group that those same

utilities argued to the supreme court that if e.p.a. intends to address climate carbon pollution, it should act under section 111, which this legislation would prevent it rom doing. they represented many utilities and they said this was the appropriate way for e.p.a. to address carbon pollution from utilities, exactly what the e.p.a. would do if it weren't for this law. i know there may be some ideological desire to deny climate change and hope the issue goes away but that's not going to happen. more fundamentally what we're getting caught up in today is this false choice that you hear over and over again that you have to choose on one hand between a healthy environment nd on the other hand a prosperous economy. americans deserve nothing less than both. and we have to pay attention to

this. i offer finally comments from the -- from some of our leading health organizations, the american academy of pediatrics, american college of preventive medicine, the american lung association, the american public health association and others who point out that cleaning up carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases saves lives. researchers have found that the efforts enacted now to reduce greenhouse gases, including can carbon pollution, from all sources in the united states would prevent more than 16,000 premature deaths by 2030. the lives saved are as a result of ozone that is reduced as carbon is reduced. cleaning up carbon pollution from power plants is essential to saving those lives and that will save money. it's important to remember, too, he economic effects of unregulated carbon, it does not just extend to the climate but

theals by products of clean air that come and help our economy as well, help people be healthy and help them ultimately contribute to the economy. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, reserves. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield one and a half minutes to mr. sensenbrenner of wisconsin. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for one and a half minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: i rise in support of h.r. 3826. i appreciate the work that the bill's sponsor, mr. whitfield, has done on the issue and i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of the bill. wisconsin relies on coal for roughly 2/3 of our electric production. energy costs are consistently one of the main concern misconstituents share with me. the cold winter has made high energy bills the norm throughout wisconsin and instead of trying to alleviate these high costs, the e.p.a. is pursuing policies that will drive energy costs --

cost prices even higher. the e.p.a.'s new source performance standards require that new power plants capture, compress, and score about 40% of the co-2 produced in order to be compliant. however, c.c.s. technology required has not been adequately demonstrated. ignoring the realities of today's technologies, the e.p.a. is plowing full speed ahead this action threely -- clearly marks another salvo in the obama administration's war on coal. the next rally will be the rules concerning existing power plants. if done incorrectly, they could make it too expensive for our coal-fired power plants to continue operating. while this might be the dream of some, my constituents and yours simpley cannot afford it. fortunately, this bill restores common sense to the e.p.a.'s rule making process for power plants. by setting reasonable guidelines

rules and subjecting any rules for current plants to congressional oversight, the bill will ensure that our constituents are able to afford their energy costs. i urge my colleagues to support this bill and to prevent the e.p.a. from unleashing chaos in the energy sector and picking the pockets of consumers. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. wax minnesota: my i inquire as to the time? the chair: each side has four minutes remaining. mr. waxman: to close on our side, i yield to the gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer a great champion of environmental protection. mr. -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. blumenauer: thank you for your courtesy permitting me to speak on this bill. i would like to reference the comments a moment ago that somehow there isn't available large commercial carbon capture

sequestration, that this is somehow a figment. as a matter of fact, in the united states today, there are seven large commercial carbon capture sequestration projects operating today. the projects at large, commercial, fire plants will come online in the united states and canada this year. dr. julio freedman, deppcy assistant for clean coal at the department of nverage testified that c.c.s. technology is commercially available, you can ll up a number of u.s. and international manufactures and they'll sell you a unit. the idea that c.c.s. technologies for coal are unavailable is simply not true. i would deeply suggest that this is one of the reasons we're having this bizarre conversation today. we're just sort of south -- out of sync with reality. i strongly oppose h.r. 3826. the debate about this bill is

about the reality of dangerous climate change. if you accept modern science, you cannot deny the combined weight of over 10,000 peer-reviewed, published scientific studies which tell us that climate change is happening, is caused by humans, and will have extremely serious impacts. and if you fight wildfires or you are farming or run a ski resort or live in a low-lying coastal area, you're already living with the impacts of climate change on a daily basis. all of these studies and experience are telling us the same thing -- carbon pollution produced by human activities is warming the earth, it's driving more extreme weather events, variability, more heat waves and droughts, more and longer intense wildfire seasons, rising sea levels, melting per ma frost and ocean acidify case. climate disruption is harming economic activities in my state,

dealing with agriculture, declining snow packs, ski resorts and it's affecting the insurance industry. and it's beginning to impose huge costs on those least able to bear them. people living in the poorest and most vulnerable parts of the world. the united states is a major contributor to climate change and it cannot be mitigated without us. we have a moral responsibility to act. but h.r. 3826 does just the opposite. it makes the problem worse by preventing e.p.a. from acting in the interests of the environment and our country. coal-fired plants are the single largest source of carbon pollution and today, there is no limit on how much carbon pollution they can emit. that's why president obama directed e.p.a. to use its existing authority under the clean air act to require power plants to control carbon pollution, something long overdue.

e.p.a. proposed a rule to require new plants to use available pollution control technology to capture and sequester carbon pollution. for existing plants, e.p.a. is working with stake holders to think through the best approach. e.p.a. has not yet even issued a proposal but industry is moving on. in my region, a major utility made the decision on sound economics and environment to hut down a coal powered plant. h.r. 3826 would stop e.p.a. from issuing any rules and allow these plants to keep emitting unlimited amounts of carbon pollution. and for existing plant the bill would be straight out prohibition of any e.p.a. rule from becoming effective unless congress somehow passed a new law to implement the rule. as a practical matter, this repeals the e.p.a.'s existing authority to act. mr. chairman, this bill is a

dead letter. the senate will never pass it. even if they did, the president would veto it, as well he should. let's spare him the agony and reject this misguided proposal now. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. kelly. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. kelly: thank you, mr. chairman. the electricity and security act, i want you to think a little bit, we've heard a lot of rhetoric on the floor about what's going on, but i want you to understand in pennsylvania, over 40% of the electricity is generated by coal-fired power plants. if you go become to the election, the president said clearly if you want to continue to produce electricity using coal-fired power plants, you can, but we will bankrupt you. the only thing he didn't add to that was, period. that's the war on coal. when we talk about these things and the number of people in our society right now, not just the middle income people, lower

middle income people but the low income people, what are we affecting? everything they put in their mouth, everything they put on their backs, everything they do to heat and light their homes. the sum total of the cost of anything is everything that goes into it. the cost of energy and using coal to get there just makes sense. coal has done so much for this country for so many years, i'm not just talking about a few people and as the chairman -- and if the chairman doesn't believe this is affecting people, come back to western pennsylvania, walk with me, go to the little towns where there's no coal mine open, and the towns are shut down. isn't that a marvelous thing to have accomplished and saying, we're doing the right thing for america, we're going to drive your energy doses up, make it impossible to heat and -- heat and light your homes, change the cost of everything you use to raise your children, because it affects the cost of everything, the sum total is made up of energy costs also. we'll raise the bar so high it

will no longer be possible for these folks to operate and then we'll back up and say, my goodness they couldn't meet the standard. when we ask what does the standard have to be, just a little better than it is now. how would we begin to measure? we haven't derled that. we have set standards but we don't have any way of doing it. if we don't get to the point to measure the metrics on it. i would just ask you for one thing, to think about those thousands and millions of people who have forever relied on coal and the electricity we can supply and the energy we can supply at a unit that's low enough they can continue to live a normal life. that's all we're asking. this bill is common sense which is so devoid in this house. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has two minutes remaining to close. mr. whitfield: thank you very much. to conclude this i would point out to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there's been a lot of discussion today about the availability of carbon capture and sequestration.

let's not forget that the energy policy act of 2005 said, emission standards will not be set by plants receiving funds from the clean energy initiative at the department of energy. and the plant referred to by my friend from the west coast, the southern company, receives, it's costing $5 billion and the president of southern company said this plant cannot be consistently replicated on a national level and cannot be the primary basis for new emission standards. because they're artificially concocted. so our legislation simpley says, in the future, if natural gas prices go up, america, like most every other country in the world, will have the option of building a new coal powered plant. so i think it's a reasonable

approach. it has bipartisan support. and this is the first time that we've been eable to have a national debate with this president who has already made up his mind, he does not want coal for america. this is our opportunity to express the opinion of the american people that we need coal moving into the future and i would urge the adoption of h.r. 3826. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. it shall be in order to consider as original bill an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of rule committees print 113-40. that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered read. no amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order expect those prinned in house report 113-373. each such amendment may be

offered only in the order printed in the report, by a member designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to nand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in ouse report 113-373. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. chairman, amendment at the desk. -- i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 113-373 offered by mr. smith of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 497, the gentleman from texas, mr. smith, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, we should not stand by and let the

e.p.a. tear down america one regulation at a time, so i thank the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, for his work on h.r. 3826, the elect trick security and affordability act. economic growth depends on job creators, not federal regulators. we need to increase access to affordable energy, not take energy options off the table. now is the time to ensure a robust all-of-the-above energy strategy that includes our abundant fossel energies as well as -- fossil energies but by capturing things that don't exist, the e.p.a.'s new power plant proposal effectively bans new coal power. there is no coal power plant anywhere in the world that can meet the e.p.a.'s radical proposal. what's equally troubling is that the e.p.a.'s planning to require the same unproven technology for new natural gas

power. this amendment stops the e.p.a.'s attack on natural gas. it prevents the e.p.a. from using make-believe technologies when setting standards. i'm interested in protecting all forms of affordable energy from e.p.a. overreach, including coal, natural gas and renewables, and that's what this amendment does. under the clean air act, the e.p.a.'s required to rely on a technology that has been adequately demonstrated in the words of the law, but once again the e.p.a. is trying to twist the law to soothe its extremist agenda. the e.p.a. does this by using an old legal trick. if you can't win the argument as it stands, start arguing about the definition of words. by redefining what the term, quote, adequately demonstrated, end quote, means, the agency is requiring the use of an unproven technology. in so doing, the e.p.a.'s making a tremendous power grab, one that reaches well beyond coal. only in washington can you call

something adequately demonstrated that doesn't even exist. over the past few months, it's becoming increasingly clear that the e.p.a. isn't going after coal, the administration has no intention of stopping there, coal will be taking the hardest hit today, but the e.p.a. is trying to take down natural gas. this administration has tried to deem onize hydraulic fracturing and prevent the construction of the keystone x.l. pipeline which will create housands of jobs and provide thousands of americans have affordable energy. the e.p.a. plans to impose harsh power plant requirements on all forms of fossil energy. the e.p.a. and the department of energy have already begun to tout these plans around the world. this amendment requires the e.p.a. to rely on proven technologies when it sets rules for any new power plant. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of h.r. 3826 and

help prevent the e.p.a. from implementing reckless regulations that disregard the facts. this amendment promotes an all-of-the-above energy strategy, promotes good-paying jobs, american manufacturing and helps us secure energy independence. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: the underlying bill, h.r. 3826, is a radical rewrite of the clean air act. it effectively repeals the e.p.a.'s existing authority to address carbon pollution from coal powered plants. it says that e.p.a. cannot set a standard for new plants unless the standard is already being met by power plants using technologies that could achieve

that standard. well, why would any power plant want to spend the money to use technology to achieve a standard that their competitors do not have to achieve? so it's a chicken and egg problem. you cannot require them to do what they are not already doing . well, this amendment goes a step further. it says, well, for natural gas -fired power plants, they shouldn't do anything that they are not doing either. they would block e.p.a. from requiring natural gas-fired power plants to install pollution controls. but the problem is e.p.a. in its current proposal for new natural gas power plants doesn't have any controlled technology. e.p.a. is going to set a standard and let that standard be achieved however the

industry would accomplish it. so this amendment would preemptively block e.p.a. from ever considering rules that might further reduce carbon pollution from any future power plants, whether they be coal or natural gas. i think it makes no sense. it's a disaster for the climate, and i urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, how much time remains on either side? the chair: the gentleman from texas has a minute and a half. the gentleman from california has three minutes remaining. myth smith thank you, mr. chairman. let me say to -- mr. smith: thank you, mr. chairman. let me say to my friend on the other side, we have one more speaker if he'd like to close and we will go to my last speaker. mr. waxman: i'm not prepared to close. mr. smith: then i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized.

mr. waxman: mr. chairman, what this -- if you look at what's happening with this bill and this amendment both were passed, combine coal and natural gas power plants emit a third of all carbon pollution in this country. they're responsible for virtually all carbon pollution from the electricity sector. this amendment would ensure that industry can keep building new fossil fuel power plants without modern pollution controls, whether they be natural gas or coal. so in effect, if this amendment is agreed to and the underlying is adopted, it would say in effect we're not going to control any of the carbon pollution coming from any power plant. now, if we don't control the pollution from any power plant and we let them emit whatever pollution they choose to emit -- and it's obviously cheaper

to pollute than to stop polluting -- we will in effect condemn us to all that pollution, which happens to be -- let me repeat this again. of appens to be the third the carbon pollution in this country today, and that would in hell 's no chance that we will ever reduce the pollution in this country that we can reduce and adding to climate change pollution in addition to all the other pollutants coming from around the world. and those pollutants just don't go away. they accumulate in the atmosphere, and when they accumulate in the atmosphere, we see the impact on the climate. but at some point we're going to have so much pollutants in the atmosphere from carbon that

scientists are telling us we won't be able to do anything. we won't be able to contribute -- continue to contribute that pollution without making it impossible to do anything about climate change. we have a chance to do something about climate change now. that should not -- we should not lose that chance by adopting this amendment and the underlying bill. so i would urge that we vote against the amendment and the underlying bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i'll yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from arizona, mr. schweikert, who is the chairman of the environment subcommittee of the science, space and technology committee. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for a minute and a half. mr. schweikert: thank you, mr. chairman, and to my good friend, the chairman of the science and technology committee, congratulations on yesterday. sort of a one step off. i lost the ranking member.

i was going to congratulate him on his years of service now his decision to leave the body. i'm obviously standing here with two separate points i want to make. one is i actually believe the underlying bill has been substantially misrepresented. if you take to the totality of the clean air act, nox and all the other pollutants that's regulated, that's not what this legislation touches and does. be that as it may, i'm here to stand up and advocate for amendment number 1, which is very simple in its ell against. it does a very simple -- elegance. it does a very simple thing. it says this bill is not only a discussion about coal but it's a discussion about all fossil fuels, and if we're going to have a regime mechanic that says the -- this technology, once it's properly demonstrated is appropriate to adopt, should not that demonstration be on other forms of fossil fuels

that may be generating power? you know, it's many ways -- it's that concept of sort of optionality if we're going to create a silo that says these mechanics are only about coal, that's unfair, it should be about all forms of energy because you'd hate to find out that a year or two from now that the bright shiny object that i believe the e.p.a. is often chasing has moved to something else and we've allowed a hole here in our amendment process. with that, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. all time being expired, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. smith: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas will be postponed.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-373. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. capps: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 113-373 offered by mrs. capps of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 497, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. capps, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california. mrs. capps: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, h.r. 3826 is about denial. it denies the realities of climate change. it denies the e.p.a. the ability to do its job. the supreme court has clearly stated that the e.p.a. has the authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, and the e.p.a. has used that authority under the clean air act to propose rules to improve he quality and safety of our

air. the e.p.a. or the environmental protection act rules is crucial in mitigating the impacts of climate change, especially proposal majority's -- refusal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. h.r. 3826 would nullify these rules and restrict e.p.a.'s ability to write new ones. it does nothing to address climate change. it the bill also -- the bill also bizarrely restricts e.p.a. from considering only pollution-controlled technologies being used in the united states when setting new power plant standards. in other words, if a viable technology is being used abroad, e.p.a. must pretend it doesn't exist. under the clean air act, e.p.a. must determine the best system of emission reduction for new coal-fired power plants and it must set standards based on this best technology. but this bill would block e.p.a. from considering pollution controls used outside

of the u.s. even if such systems are readily available and proven abroad. as the global leader in innovation and technology, it's absurd that we would bar the e.p.a. from even looking at the best technologies available just because of where it's being used. my amendment would make a commonsense correction to this problem. if adopted it would simply allow the e.p.a. to consider all existing pollution-controlled technologies regardless of where they're being used. for example, the e.p.a. has proposed standards for new cowher-fired power plants that would achieve greater carbon pollution reductions through , use of carbon reduction c.c.s. if coal is going to be part of the clean energy future, c.c.s. is precisely the kind of technology that we need to encourage. understanding this, e.p.a. and others have provided evidence to our committee that c.c.s. is both feasible and available and

that coal-fired power plants with c.c.s. are moving forward. some of these projects are in the united states, but some of them are being pursued abroad, ut without my amendment, these improvements or projects abroad would not be considered by this innovation. this is ridiculous and wrong. i want to be clear, this amendment will not make this a sensible or reasonable bill, and i'll be voting no even if my amendment should be adopted, but my amendment would at least avoid the embarrassment of the united states congress requiring a science-based agency to pretend that technologies operating in other countries simply don't exist. i hope there can be bipartisan agreement that we shouldn't deny science since it is being used by someone else. effective technologies are being

installed and used in other countries, including our neighbor to the north. and e.p.a. surely should be allowed to consider these technologies. my amendment would ensure that e.p.a. can do its job and consider all available technologies when setting pollution control standards. so i ask my colleagues to support this simple and sensible change and support my amendment. and i reserve the ball aps of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. mr. whitfield: i wish to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i have a great deal of respect for the gentlelady from california. i might add we have heard a lot today about climate change. former e.p.a. administrator lisa jackson herself stated in a hearing, we will not ultimately be able to change the amount of co2 that is accumulating in the

atmosphere alone and she meant the united states. 96% of emissions are natural -- naturally occurring. manmade is around 4%. and i might also point out that in the recent fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, they acknowledged that lack of warming since 1998 and they acknowledge the growing discrepancy between their climate model projections versus actual readings. so it's not that people are denying, it's that there is a significant difference among the scientific community about what is manmade co2 contributing and .hat is naturally occurring co2 he gentlelady's amendment, the

canadian project, it's not in operation yet. it was said it would not have been built without government funds. and her amendment would simply say if it's working in canada, the e.p.a. could apply that and make it mandatory here. we believe that the energy policy act of 2005 made it illegal for e.p.a. to even set the emissions standard that they set in their proposed rule. and certainly, what the gentlelady's amendment would allow is the governments to put in large sums of money to make some projects work that may not in reality be able to be accomplished in the u.s. because of lack of private capital. so if technology is working in

another country, it can be brought to america and if it meets our standards set in paragraphs b and c, it would be able to be utilized. for that reason, i would make the argument that the gentlelady's amendment should be rejected. and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: there is a little bit of misunderstanding here. i was not implying if there is another technology in a country such as canada, it would have to be automatically used in this country. we wouldn't want to deny the opportunity of a scientist to be able to examine other technologies just because they came from a different country, such as canada. mr. whitfield: may i reply? mrs. capps: sure.

the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: we object that the e.p.a. would use that and build that technology here in the u.s. and i think your amendment would allow them to do that and that's what we object to. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky reserves. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. mrs. capps: i don't believe the word mandate or required was in my amendment. it would just be allowing the consideration of proposals and technologies from other countries than just the united states as far as my amendment was concerned. but i'll go ahead and complete the amendment. mr. chairman, my amendment is simple and straightforward. it makes a small change to the bill, which i just said, which would allow e.p.a. to consider

all available technologies when developing pollution control systems. this is an idea that should have bipartisan support. my colleagues across the aisle say how the government shouldn't be picking winners -- the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. capps: i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: whenever e.p.a. sets the standard, we want the technology to be in the u.s. for at least a year operating for a year and six units have the proof of that. that's why we object to the lady's amendment and i would urge members to vote against her amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mrs. capps: i would request a recorded vote.

the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number printed in ouse report 113-373. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from west virginia seek recognition? mrs. capito: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 3 printed in house report 113-373 offered by mrs. capito of west virginia the chair: the gentlewoman from west virginia, mrs. capito, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from west virginia. mrs. capito: my amendment is a simple clarifying amendment that goes right along the discussion we were having with the previous amendment. it makes clear in the underlying bill it does not stop e.p.a. from relying on foreign technologies to establish a performance standard so long as that foreign technology has been

adequately demonstrated at power plants here in the united states. and i think my colleague from kentucky was making that point. the electricity and security affordability act is necessary because the e.p.a. has taken the unprecedented step of requiring the use of technology that has not been demonstrated here in the united states. e rule is a defacto ban on coal-fired plants anywhere in the united states. why is this significant? as our coal fleet retires if plants have reached the end of their life, what takes their place to provide affordable and reliable electricity to families and businesses. in january when temperatures dropped, a.e.p. that provides power in my region was operating 89% of the coal capacity that will retire in 2015. when that capacity is no longer

available, our electric grid will be less reliable and prices will increase. west virginia has vast supplies of both natural gas and coal. i fully support the development and use of all of our resources. we need a diverse energy policy that includes coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewable to support our economic growth and keep energy bills that families pay each month from skyrocketing. we cannot turn away from coal which provides 40% of our nation's electricity and 95% of the electricity in my home state of west virginia. other countries understand that coal provides the energy necessary to power their economy. the international energy agency released a report in december stating that global coal consumption will continue to rise and increase by more than 2% through 2018. between 2007 and 2012, global coal consumption increase dfas ter than oil or natural gas. china and india are constructing

new coal plants. even germany is increasing its coal capacity in 2013. the rest of the world is willing to use coal. we in the united states have a strong competitive advantage because we have hundreds of years of supply. increasingly, we are exporting coal for use abroad. west virginia exports more coal than any other state. it provides jobs, real jobs in our state, it is difficult to understand why we would turn away from using our own domestic resources at the same time other countries are turning towards our domestic resources. unilateral action by the united states will do nothing to address the global problem of carbon dioxide emissions. emissions fell to their lowest level since the mid-1990's. carbon dioxide emissions increased globally.

china's co2 emissions offset the emissions than the united states. and other countries comprising % of none-u.s. emissions enacting stringent regulations. this would minimize the consequences and maximize the environmental benefits. the administration has chosen the opposite course, imposing a unilateral regulation that aximizes our pain and this means fewer west virginia jobs and higher energy prices for consumers. let's be clear what today's legislation does. this legislation does not stop the e.p.a. from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired plants. the bill requires e.p.a. to base its regulations on the best performing existing coal plants. we should encourage the

implementation of cleaner coal technologies but a ban on coal plants will not encourage new technologies but leave promising technologies on the shelf and the economic advantage offered by our natural resources is lost. this is a good straightforward piece of legislation and my amendment makes it clear we want the best technology to set the standards for new plants, regardless of where that technology is developed as long as that technology is developed -- is demonstrated in the united states coal plants. i urge the amendment's adoption and reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mr. waxman: i seek to claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i don't know how to oppose this amendment because it doesn't seem to make the underlying bill any worse.

the problem is this. he bill requires that before new standard of coal power plants is set, there has to be six coal power plants in this country that is already using this technology. and we've argued that's not going to happen because no one is going to use the technology if the competitors aren't going to use the technology. and if the technology outside of this country that's being used successfully, e.p.a. can't rely on that. ms. capps' amendment would have changed that. mrs. capito's amendment said e.p.a. can consider technology developed in other countries but only the the technologies are

being broadly adopted in the united states, as i understand it. well, in fact, that will lead to the exact same problem that we have in the underlying bill. under both the amendment and the bill, e.p.a. would still be prevented from proposing a standard based on cleaner coal technology, such as ultrasuper critical boilers which can reduce pollution by increasing efficiency. that technology is being used in more than 100 units generating power in china. but the united states has only installed one. we can't let that one and all the others that are being used in china allow the e.p.a. to set a standard that would require that technology. under the bill and the amendment, that one u.s. plant won't be sufficient for e.p.a. to set a new standard. so even if this amendment

passes, e.p.a. will still be prohibited from setting pollution control standards based on effective pollution deployed hat had been overseas ffment you are going to pretend climate change isn't happening, why not that other technologies used in other countries don't exist either? so i can't -- i'm not going to sk for a roll call vote. i'm not going to vote for your amendment. the amendment is not fixing anything. so if people want to vote for this amendment, vote for the amendment, because it doesn't make anything any different than the problems that i see with the underlying bill. with those comments, mr. chairman, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back. all time being expired.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it it. the amendment is agreed to. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-373. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 113-373 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 497, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. under this legislation, the e.p.a. is required to submit a report to congress regarding the impacts of this proposed regulation will have on the

economy, our competitiveness, our job losses and the electricity rates. quite frankly, many here in congress and the constituents we represent across america have come not to trust the e.p.a., to tell the truth about the impacts of the proposed new source performance standard rule or the upcoming source rule will have on our nation. the amendment before us adds stock holders with whom the e.p.a. should consult when finalizing its report. this includes the energy information agency who will provide the e.p.a. with the necessary statistics and background, it includes the comptroller general who oversees the government accountability office, because the g.a.o.'s reports have led to hearings and legislation billions of dollars in taxpayer savings and improvements to a wide range of government programs and services. it also includes the national

institute of standards and technology who work with industry to develop and apply our nation's technology, measurements and standards. and finally, the national energy technology laboratory, under the direction of the epartment of energy. netl has developed carbon capture and sequestration technologies. mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. for what -- does anyone seek recognition in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from west virginia is recognized to close. mr. mckinley: thank you, mr. chairman. during the house debate on congressman gardner's bill recently on house bill 4480, the domestic energy and jobs bill, i offered a similar amendment. this amendment passed by voice vote and ensured that netl had a seat at the table.

as background for everyone, netl has a laboratory dedicated to domestic energy sources. last year alone netl worked with academia and the private sector on over 1,000 projects, has represented over 55,000 jobs and $12 billion in project funding in every state and nearly every congressional district. it's only fitting that they, along with others, are included in this process. let's be clear here. if we support transparency by having relevant agencies consult with the e.p.a., these same agencies who provide with us with statistic, develop our standards, develop our technology and keep our agencies and congress in line and accountable, then you would support this amendment. members of congress consult with their staff, their respective committees, other members' offices and their constituents, so it's fitting the e.p.a. should do the same under this amendment.

chairman whitfield and his staff are to be commended for their hard work to putting together such an incredible bipartisan effort in this legislation. i'm a proud co-sponsor to work with them and encourage all my colleagues to support this amendment, and more importantly the underlying bill. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-373. for what purpose does the gentleman from west virginia seek recognition? mr. mckinley: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 113-373 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 497, the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from west virginia. mr. mckinley: thank you, again, mr. chairman. once again, i'd like to reference section 3 of the underlying bill. the amendment would strengthen the analysis and reporting the e.p.a.'s required to develop under this legislation. one of the problems in our coal, gas and oil industry faces the vast and ideologically motivated regulations they must endure such as the new source performance standard. however, other nations don't seem to be -- imposed such burdensome policies and regulations on their industries. instead, countries in the middle east and asia promote their fossil fuel businesses and work to make it easier for those countries to get their fossil fuels to market. mr. chairman, it's called fairness. now, i'm sure you'll hear that some of the opponents of this in the past have said this amendment falsely claims this

amendment is flawed and too broad. we've heard this amendment might open up pandora's box. issues we heard from our friends two years ago when i offered a similar amendment. that's simply not true, not accurate. this amendment and legislation will make certain that the united states remains viable in its manufacturing on a global scale, ensures we don't put more people and their family or children on the street with uncertainty, and we can provide them with certainty and access to abundant and affordable electricity. this amendment is about protecting our liberty and providing transparency. ask hat, mr. chairman, i the -- i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from west virginia reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: mr. chairman, i opposition so i can make a few points. the chair: the gentleman is

recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i didn't speak on the last amendment. i didn't think that last amendment did anything worse than the bill already does. this amendment modifies a section of the underlying bill which requires e.p.a. to report to congress on the economic impacts of any regulation of carbon pollution from existing fossil fuel-fired power plants. this is meaningless because e.p.a. already does this analysis, and if this bill were adopted, this wouldn't do anything to trigger the reporting requirement anyway. but this amendment would add nor more items to be considered -- would add more items to be considered in e.p.a.'s report on a rule regulating carbon pollution from existing power plants. for example, this bill would require the e.p.a. to look at the rules, potential affects on capital and operation and maintenance costs for pollution controlled equipment. but that's exactly what e.p.a. already does for every

significant rule that requires pollution controls. the amendment also requires e.p.a. to analyze our particular pollution control requirement may affect the global economic competitiveness of the united states. i don't think that makes any sense to add this because it's questionable whether we even have reliable economic models to make this assessment. if this bill were adopted, e.p.a. wouldn't be doing this report anyway, so it doesn't really matter. i'm not going to object to the amendment. i'm not going to vote for the amendment, but it won't have any affect because the underlying bill is going to prevent e.p.a. from acting, whether it's a new power plant or existing power plant. but this i did want to single out this provision which i think is unreasonable to expect e.p.a. to be able to do this

global economic competitiveness analysis. that's not what the e.p.a. does. they're not in position to do it, and to add that requirement i think is a very bad precedent. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia is recognized. mr. mckinley: thank you, again, mr. chairman, and congressman waxman. under this bill the e.p.a. is required, as he stated, is required to take into account the economic impacts this rule could have on our global competitiveness and require capital investments and cost for operation and maintenance of new equipment. we know that under the new source performance standard rule the cost of electricity ould skyrocket by as much as 70%. this cost will be passed onto the consumers. consequently, we -- american manufacturers will indeed be put at a global disadvantage and many will lose their

business. we've seen testimony by economists, academics and scientists who say that under this proposed regulation capital costs will increase by as much as 110%. this is unconscionable. at a time when saudi arabia, china and india are helping their job creators thrive and open up global opportunities for them, this administration and its ideologically motivated e.p.a. are exporting jobs, creating uncertainty and trying to decarbonize america with little to show for health and economic benefits. the e.p.a. needs to lock at what other nations are doing -- look at other nations are doing to grow and stabilize their fossil fuel industries. this amendment will help us show how we can improve and stop hindering the development of our natural resources. ultimately, i offer this amendment because we are supposed to be a nation leading by example over the rest of the world.

with nearly 23 million people underemployed or unemployed, we really ought to be saying to our regulators, just because you can doesn't mean you should . mr. chairman, again, i wish to thank mr. upton and whitfield for their support of this amendment and the underlying bill that goes with it. mr. whitfield's work on the overall bill shows his true leadership and caring for the people of app latchia and -- appalachia and all across america. this country is a leader in the world, an innovator and a job creator. it's time that it reins in excessive regulations that cede burdens resulting in families, children, husbands, spouses worried about tomorrow. it's time our regulators pull back in. this amendment and this legislation overall will create

that ability we have in the american dream again but not an american dream that's driven by regulations. i urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. mr. waxman: if the gentleman will yield to me? mr. mckinley: and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. waxman: if the gentleman will yield? the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. mckinley: i yield back. mr. waxman: you won't do it. ok. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from west virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider mendment number 6 printed in house report 113-373. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. schakowsky: to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-373 offered by ms. schakowsky of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house

resolution 497, the gentlewoman from illinois, ms. schakowsky, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois. ms. schakowsky: thank you. i yield myself four minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized for four minutes. ms. schakowsky: my dear colleagues, this is the simplest of simple amendments. it asks of this house only one thing, to acknowledge the truth of these words, quote, greenhouse gas pollution is contributing to long-lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of negative effects, unquote. our country and this congress are at a critical point in the history of our small planet, but we are privileged as the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth to lead the world in combating climate change. there is still time, and if we act now, we can protect our

natural resources like water and promote job growth and ensure that our descendents are able to live healthy lives on this planet long after we're gone. making the right choice begins with accepting the fact of climate change. it's hard to ignore this reality. the 10th hottest years in human years all occurred since 1998. this time last year, we had just completed the hottest year ever in the united states, a full degree hotter in terms of average temperature, than the previous record. though we are dealing with cold in many parts of the u.s. this year, the scientists tell us global temperatures are continuing to warm. some islands will be submerged during this century unless meaningful action is taken. here at home, we are seeing droughts, wildfires, storms and hurricanes. there are tremendous economic

incentives for the united states to take climate change seriously. in december, it was estimated that the clean energy sector could generate $1.9 trillion in revenue from 2012 to 2018 and there are three times as many jobs. as we work to create an economy that supports 21st century jobs, how can we overlook one of the fastest growing industrial sectors and millions of jobs it would support. large multinational corporations have joined environmentalists and scientists and the vast majority of the american public who recognize the impact of carbon pollution on our world. coca-cola has suffered from a global water shortage that is driving up costs and coke has recognized climate change as a challenge to its future profitability. the business plans of exxonmobil

and the other big five oil companies assume they will have to pay for the costs for carbon in the future. this congress should recognize the same facts that these business leaders have accepted. climate change is real and requires a different game plan. history will not be kind to climate change deniers. my amendment doesn't ask for much or doesn't change the bill's provisions but simply ks 21 century leaders to say yes to this simple fact. climate change is real and can have negative consequences. and mr. chairman, i yield the balance of my time to my co-sponsor of this legislation, that an that will -- owen will. how much time remains? the chair: a minute and a half

remaining. ms. schakowsky: i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: oppose the gentlelady's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i have a great deal of admiration and respect for the gentlelady, but i might say this legislation might not have been necessary if e.p.a. had adopted a standard that had been adequately demonstrated and was not in violation of the energy policy act of 2005. i would also say in wanting to add this language to the bill, e.p.a. itself in discussing its proposed regulation projected that its you rule would result co2 emission changes.

even e.p.a. does not think that their regulation is going to significantly reduce co2 emissions because 96% of them are naturally occurring. less than 4% are manmade. and i might also point out once again that no one is a denier of climate change but more and more scientists are disagreeing with e impact of manmade co2 than naturally-occurring co2. after the report in the fall of last year, a group of scientists from the international panel on climate change in a 1,200 page report with thousands of references to peer-reviewed papers made the argument that natural forces, not manmade forces, is really driving the earth's climate.

so we are particularly concerned that this regulation would prevent america with the flexibility in the future if natural gas prices go up, we would not have the option like most other country in the world of building a coal plant. so that's why we respectfully oppose her amendment and i would ield -- reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from llinois is recognized. mr. lowenthal: i think she yielded. mr. lowenthal: i thank the gentlewoman from illinois for yielding and being a steadfast leader on this issue. mr. chairman, this amendment confirms what the world's scientists already know that greenhouse gases contribute to long lasting changes in our climate that can have a range of

harmful effects. this information by entities with conflicts of interests have fueled reports of scientific disagreement. however, the scientific community is not divided, because there is no compelling scientific evidence denying human's role in climate change, period. case closed. every minute we waste on the myth of disagreement is a minute longer we wait to take concrete ction, making our inevitable energy transition even more expensive. mr. chairman, we will be judged by our children for what we do here today. i urge an aye vote and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has three minutes

remaining. mr. whitfield: in reply to this case-closed argument, the fifth assessment report of the international panel on climate change, which came out in the fall, acknowledged lack of warming since 1998 and a growing discrepancy between the model projections and the reality of the observations actually made, the zrep annie between the models and reality were increasing. it also acknowledged that the evidence of the climate sensitivity to the increases in 2 concentrations, it acknowledged that sea level rising during the period 1920 to 1950 was the same in 1995 to 2012. that is the united nations international panel on climate change. and with that, i would just

respectfully request that we defeat the gentlelady's amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. ms. schakowsky: i would like a roll call vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from illinois will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee do now rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the iowa have it.

the committee now rises. the committee of the whole house having had under consideration h.r. 3826, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the he committee of the whole on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3826 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany

house resolution 501, resolution providing for consideration of the bill 2824 to amend the surface mining control act to stop the ongoing waste by the department of taxpayer and implement the final rule on excess spoil mining waste and bufferers and streams and for other purposes. providing consideration for the bill 2641 to improve coordinated agency actions in adoption of environmental documents for permitting determinations and for other purposes and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 497 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole and the state of the union for the further

consideration of h.r. 3826. will the gentleman from illinois kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house of the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3826 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: provide direction to the administrator of the environmental protection agency regarding the establishment of standards for emissions of any reenhouse gas from fossil fuel fired utility generating units. the chair: a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 6 printed in house report 113-373 offered by the gentlewoman from illinois had been postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-373. for what purpose does the

gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. latta: i rise to offer my amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 113-373 offered by mr. latta of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio, mr. latta, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. latta: i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 3826. this amendment would make a clarification to the bill to make explicit the demonstration projects referred to projects that received federal government funding or assistance. this recent response to comments raised when the bill was marked up that the definition of demonstration project could be construed to sweep in any projects receiving government support including local tax assistance. this amendment helps clarify the bill and highlights the energy policy act of 2005 which applies the e.p.a.'s standards to

proposed new plants. the act prohibits e.p.a. from considering technologies of federally-funded projects under d.o.e. under clean coal initiative. the purpose of this is to prevent the mandate ofing of technologies that are not viable. e.p.a.'s determination that carbon capturing storage for new plants have been adequately demonstrated is not borne out in the real world in the agency's proposed rule, it cites four demonstration proper jets that are in various stages of lanning and development. a project is still under delays and the company running the plant cannot be consistently replicated on a national level and should not serve as a primary basis impacting all new coal-fired plants.

summit, texas, is still in the planning stage and subject to multiple delays. hydrogen energy in california is in the planning and permitting stages. lastly, boundary dam crmple c.s. project is a small facility rebuild project still under project and it seems clear that the companies and institutions involved that they are not yet ready to be considered for commercial development. as one secretary suggested, it is disinagain you us to say c.c.s. is ready. it should be very clear to the american taxpayers that this administration is trying to eliminate the use of coal in this country and in our state, 78% of electricity comes from coal and everyone is resulting

increased health care costs. we should have more energy that is less expensive for people rather -- the most vulnerable citizens in our country. mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. and mr. chairman, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. . . mr. waxman: the underlying bill prevents e.p.a. for setting requirements for new coal-fired plants. instead of telling a new coal plant they have to use chnology to reduce their carbon emissions, this bill says

they can't require that of new plants, unless new plants are already using technology to reduce emissions. well, ok. if they're already using technology, we can say everybody ought to use that technology, but then the underlying bill goes further and says, not only that they're using technology that accomplishes the goal but there's got to be six plants, representing all over the country, achieving this standard using technology. and then e.p.a. can consider a standard for new power plants. this is like the belts and suspenders. they can't look at foreign technology, they have to use six plants that are using technology, of course, one would ask, why would anybody spend money to use technology to reduce carbon pollution if they're not required to do it? it costs money.

so it's so unlikely that there are ever going -- that they're ever going to be able to set a new standard at the environmental protection agency, given the underlying bill. but the bill also says, there are six plants that are using technology, they better not use technology that's been funded by the government. well why not? that's what the government does. we provide d.o.e. grants to have demonstrations of new technology. that's what the underlying bill says. if they're achieving reductions in carbon pollution because it's involving government funds, we're not going to count those. now we have the latta amendment that says, well wait a second, what if it's funds for demonstrations that's not using federal dollars but local dollars?

well, fine. i don't have any objection to that. but i don't know why we would say federal dollars can't be used to demonstrate technologies that are successful. so the latta amendment narrows the underlying bill but doesn't really accomplish much. why, i would ask, would we want to say that the department of energy, using taxpayers' dollars for projects to find new and better ways to improve air quality for the american people, should not be used by e.p.a. to set a standard for future power plants. these projects, funded by the federal government, help companies figure out how to reduce air pollution more effectively and at a lower cost. the whole point is to develop technology that can be applied across the industry to reduce air pollution. so if the federal government funds those new technologies and

they're successful, we're not going to let the standard be based on that. but if the state funds the development of the new technologies and accomplish -- technologies that accomplish these goals, we can use that, but there better be six and they better fit the underlying requirement that there be six, in different parts of the country and on and on and on. i don't object to this amendment, i don't see what the amendment particularly does. it doesn't solve any particular problem that i see. i just want to component out how offensive this underlying bill is, to not let e.p.a. set standards for new plants when we know that technologies can reduce the carbon pollution but we're not going to look at it for real unless they meet a

higher standard which is sex plants. but they better not be using government funded technology from the federal government which would be the case if this amendment is adopted. so i just want to make these points rhetorically because i think people ought to understand how offensive this bill is and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. latta: i reserve -- does the gentleman have any further speakers? did he yield back? mr. waxman: may i inquire of the chair who closes the debate on this amendment? the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. latta: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from ohio yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from ohio.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it, the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number eight printed in house report 113-373. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. waxman: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number eight printed in house report 113-373, offered by mr. waxman of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 497, the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. mr. waxman: president obama reached out to the congress, to the republican majority of this house, and he said, let's work on ideas that could help us deal with this problem of climate change. but he also said he wanted to

make it very clear that if the republicans won't act because this house majority won't do anything to address climate change, he will. the bill we're considering today shows that the republicans plan on climate change -- the republicans' plan on climate change is to give up hope. their plan is to let our childrened a grandchildren suffer the effects of climate change without lifting a finger to protect them. where's the -- the republicans' plan is to stop any meaningful action to slow climate change. i think that position is indefensible. today's bill would amend the clean air act to ensure that coal-fired power plants are able to pollute indefinitely with impunity. this bill would condition e.p.a.'s authority on conditions that simpley could never be met or at least not as long as it's

cheaper to dump pollution into the air rather than clean it up. republicans complain they don't like e.p.a.'s approach. well, what's their plan to address climate change? for years, democratic members have shown that we're willing to consider any suggestion to reduce carbon pollution and to slow climate change. we could put a price on carbon. we could put a limit on carbon pollution. we could support the development of clean energy. the bill i offered with now-senator markey rededicated $60 billion to deploy carbon capture and sequestration technology on new coal-powered plants but what congress can't do is simplery hi say no to everything. no to a price on carbon, no to a limit on carbon, no to regular ligs on carbon. what my amendment suggests is, if they don't want e.p.a. to act, to reduce the pollution

from carbon coming from coal-burning power plants, we're saying, all right. address this problem. make sure we have some other alternative that will work. because if they don't have an alternative that will work, in effect, the republicans are saying, we're not going to do anything. either we don't believe there's a problem called climate change, the scientists are all lying to us, of course we're never going to let them come before our committee and testify because they'll only lie to us about it, the science is wrong, we don't have to worry about it, we've heard over and over again from mr. whitfield, 96% of the problem is naturally occurring carbon. well, naturally occurring carbon by alanced, it's absorbed photo synthesis and other processes. but that 4% is upsetting the

balance and that balance that's being upset is a threat to this planet. it's a threat to our atmosphere. it's a threat to our nation when see hurricanes, floods, droughts, all these climate events that we hear about every night on the evening news and so what is their alternative? they don't want coal burning power plants regulated, give us an alternative that will reduce the 4% that's upsetting the balance. i would suggest that they are suggesting -- they are telling us they have no alternative whatsoever. i don't think that's an adequate answer to what many experts believe is the leading threat to our survival on this planet. so i would urge that we adopt this amendment.

if they don't like what e.p.a. is doing, tell us their plan. if they have other ideas for reducing carbon pollution to prevent catastrophic climate change, let's hear them. but if they don't, they should step aside and let the president lead. i urge support for this amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: to speak in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. whitfield: i would point out once again as i did in the beginning of the debate that the constitutional law professor jonathan tur lee testifying before the committee recently made the state thament if left unchecked, the united states president could effectively become a government unto himself. because of excessive executive orders and excessive regulations. and the only reason that we're here today is that the president

, without any really national debate, went to copenhagen and other international groups and made commitments to the -- for the u.s. on reduction of co-2 emissions. in the energy sector, our emissions are the lowest they've been in 20 years. if e.p.a. had adopted emissions standards and technology was available that had been adequately demonstrated to meet those standards, we wouldn't have any problem. but they did not do that. in fact, they violated the 205 energy policy act in setting these emission standards. so the only -- we tried to talk to e.p.a. we tried to talk to the president. we tried to talk to his representatives. and we got the cold shoulder. so the only option available to us in trying to overcome these

executive orders and regulations is to adopt some legislation. and our legislation, we don't expect a coal plant to be built. but if natural gas prices go up, america, like every other country in the world, practically, will be able to build a coal plant and the technology will be available to meet those emission standards. so with that, i would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. waxman: mr. chairman, my amendment doesn't stop e.p.a. from acting. if we can get an alternative. an alternative that would reduce the carbon pollution to the same level the e.p.a. is proposing. and my friend and colleague, mr. whit field, said the president if left unchecked, would make these commitments. well, president george h.w. bush

made a commitment on behalf of this country that we would try to achieve reduction of carbon to 1990 levels. if the republicans want to do something on their own and not let the president do it, tell us how you could accomplish these goals. if you don't want to achieve these goals it's either because you don't believe we need to achieve them or you're not willing to do anything about the problem. i urge support for the amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky is recognized. mr. whitfield: we believe the president's views are extreme. hen he sets a goal of reducing 83% below the 2005 emission levels and for that, we think this legislation is absolutely esen torble give the american people the -- essential to give the american people the flexibility in the future to build a coal plant to help meet the electricity needs of this

great country. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes visit. the amendment is not -- the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. waxman: i request a roll call vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i move that the committee rise. the chair: the motion is that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises.

the chair: the committee of the whole house under the state of the union having had under consideration directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3826 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. whitfield: i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourns to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. he clerk: senate 23, an act to designate as wilderness certain lapped and inland water in the

state of michigan and for other urposes. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for ne minute. mr. olson: mr. speaker, on march 6, 1836, nearly 200 people of texas took their last breaths at the alamo. the week before that, their that commander sent a final plea for help on the part of that

inspiring letter. to the people of texas and all 1,000 ns in the world, more mexicans under attack in santa ana. i have sustained a continual bottom barredment for 24 hours and have not lost a man. has demanded a surrender at scretion, otherwise, the garrison ought to be put to the sword. i call on you in the name of liberty, of patriotism, of everything dear to the american character to come to our aid. this call is neglected, i'm determined to sustain myself as long as possible and die as a soldier and not forget what is

due to his own honor, that of his country, victory or death. may god, history always remember the alamo. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from from alabama seek recognition? without objection. ms. sewell: mr. speaker, i rise today to declare alabama's 7th congressional district to be the district of high school basketball champions. this year at the state tournament held by the alabama high school athletic association, teams dominated winning four boys' basketball state championship titles and one girls' title. i ask my colleagues to ongratulate class 1a, st. jude

institute. ass 3a, marylandfield high school. ass 4a, dallas county high school and class 5a basketball boys champions from birmingham, alabama and wynona high school. no doubt in the 7th congressional district we breed winners. i plan to provide individual remarks so each school is recognized. i ask my colleagues in the house of representatives to join me in honoring the state of alabama high school basketball champions from alabama's 7th congressional district, the district of high school basketball champions. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition?

without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. , itjackson lee: mr. speaker is with heavy heart but a joy for his life that i rise today o honor henry willis hank neal of houston, texas, who lost his battle with life next last week. mr. speaker, i rise to pay reverend at a baptist church was called home on february 27, 2014. he was 57 years old. attack that took his life occurred where he loved the

music ministry and concluding at another church a few miles away, never stopping, never ceasing to lead to the lead of the glory of the lord. had a distinctive singing voice. according to the render of the will avenue baptist church, because of hank, we have been enriched by his genius. he was born one of eight children and raised in indiana where he took up the organ and violin and sang in the church on sunday. he dreamed of becoming a teacher, a gifted musician, hank neal and two friends formed a trio and they were discovered at a work shop and signed to a recording contract by reverend james cleveland. hank neal sang the lead on the

title track of the 1980 gospel album. the main thing that i want to share with all of you that hank was a friend. he sang at my daughter's wedding and sang this song if i might on hope."there is he was a hero, american hero. we lost a unique talent and wish our deepest sympathy to our family. you may not know him, congress, but he is an american hero. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence of ested for ms. esty connecticut. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 3, 2013, the gentleman from texas, mr. poe,

is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority eader. mr. poe: the russians are invading the ukraine. ake you back to 1938, hitler annexes a neighbor, austria. took them over. the west, the world, the freedom-loving people watched. he got away with that. and took them over because he anted to in his way, unify the german-speaking people. not long after that -- that was in march of 1938, then in october of 1938, hitler decided

czechs. part of the he wanted to help them. and he annexed them. the west agreed to that. we heard to it. waved his paper, peace in our time. hitler decide he wanted more. he invaded poland and world war ii started and invaded other countries. that was the beginning of 1938. now take you to today. vladimir putin, russia, he invades the republicic of georgia and he did so in august of 2008. and he took one-third of the country. i happened to be in the republic of georgia shortly after the russians invaded. i saw the russian tanks on the

horizon. and remember, mr. speaker, putin invaded georgia, took one-third of the land and the russians are still there. the world just moved on. the people of georgia are trying to figure out some way to deal with putin's imperial is particular attitude. but the russians are there. no consequences for that action. nd now we bring us to march of 2014. georgia, as we all know, is a former soviet republic. and now putin has his eyes on another, the ukraine. and the russian military, even though they went in with unmarked uniforms, just decided to move in and take over part of ukraine, crimea. that is the latest activity.

similar to what hitler did back in the 1930's and 1940's. and so, yes, putin is similar to hitler in that he has this appetite for other people's land, and he tries to justify it some way and he just waits to see if anybody is going to do anything about it. this is a photograph taken by the associated press, mr. speaker. areit's ukranian women that holding up signs. here's a photograph of hitler over here on the far right. and they are holding a sign. this is a russian flag with a swats sticka in the middle and the r poster showing nazi's quest in their appetite

to take other pemmings' sovereign land. the anology is in order and the world should understand that putin has it somewhere in his brain that he can on his own justify the taking of other people's sovereign land. and i think it's important that we recognize the obvious and what we will do about it, we shall see. when the russians moved into georgia, i personally don't think much happened other than the people of georgia didn't complain too much. the russians understood they could get away with it. six years later, deja vu, he can believe he can get away with it. and the reason these nations, to some extent depend on russia for their energy, including and

specifically natural gas. and the kremlin is working to re-establish its empire like bullying you crine who broke away from the soviet union years ago but wasn't able to get away from the influence and intimidation of putin. russia has used its competitive advantage to maintain a stronghold over eastern europe and the european states that were formerly aligned to the soviet union. this is my opinion. that russia, putin, has its goal to try to rebring in those former soviet republics under the sphere of influence. that is my opinion. looks like they have already started this. 70% of the gas that goes to the ukraine comes from russia. six nations and the european

union rely on russia for 100% of their natural gas. and much of europe relies on the kremlin for natural gas, although they don't get all 100% of your gas. you have your former soviet republics, the ukraine, depending on energy and natural gas from russia. the russians know that. and reliance on the russian gas shapes the foreign policy of eastern european countries, western european countries and the former soviet republics and it jeopardyizes political and economic reforms. . they understand the bullying they can get away with buzz they have the natural gas. two time they was been punished

economically, the ukrainians, by the russians turning off the gas. i happened to be in the ukraine when the russians turned off the gas one winter. mr. speaker, it gets cold in the ukraine without heat. and the russians did that to make sure the ukrainians, i believe, come around and support russian policy. this past weekend, even the russians warned that the ukrainians were not going to continue to get some discounted rate unless they reenstated the former president. they are blackmailing the ukrainians because the ukrainians want a different president other than the one the russians support. so we can change that. you know. the people back home in texas, , i think like most

americans, they don't think it's right for the russians to take over another country because but they asked this question -- what are we going to do about it? back when hitler was in charge, it took a while for the west to react and finally had to react militarily. maybe we should try to react sooner and not have to react militarily. why don't we do that economically? the way to do that is, i believe, give the ewe cranian the former society republics and eastern and western europe as well, an alternative for the hostage that they are being hold by the -- held by putin because of their energy issue and the welcome of natural gas. the lack of having an alternative. and where should they look? they should look to the united states and the united states should look to helping out these countries but also help us economically. and we should be ready to -- and

eager to export our abundant natural gas to our european friends. i think very few people in the energy industry would have believed five years ago that the united states would have so much natural gas that we would be able to export it, that we could produce it in such an efficient and clean way that we can export it to foreign countries. this is an opportunity to do so. and we should do so. there's an ice cream company down in texas which makes the best ice cream in the world called the blue bell ice cream factory in brenham, texas. their slogan is we eat all we can and we sell the rest. that should be our slogan with natural gas, we use all we can in the united states and we sell the rest. and who should we sell it to? we could start with these eastern european nations that are being intimidated by the russians. and help them economically but also help the united states and start with the ukrainians.

we have an abundant supply of natural gas and a steady supply of natural gas exported from the united states would be beneficial to our allies, eastern europe, and rhett the -- let the world know they're not going to be held hostage by the kremlin any longer. we can do this in several ways, how we can export natural gas that debate is taking place here in the house of representatives, in the department of energy, about whether or not we could or should export natural gas, set aside the ukrainian issue and i think that we should. we have that opportunity. it's something we can do to relieve the pressure of the intimidation by putin. and his attitude about moving in and taking over other people's property. demand is there in europe and the supply is overwhelming in the united states and the only thing that stands in the way is

our own government and so what do we do about that? first time in our history, we can export natural gas to foreign countries. and the united states has so much we could not use it, none of it, couldn't use it all in our lifetimes. it is beneficial to the united states to sell natural gas abroad. it will create jobs in the united states, it will create an income, it will make us energy -- we've heard this phrase since we were children, energy independent, by using natural gas but also by selling it to our allies and our friends and the only thing as i mentioned stopping it is the bureaucratic red tape. it's ironic, we talked about the year 1938, in 1938, congress passed a law that requires that any country that wanted to

export -- any company that wanted to export natural gas had to get a permit, that's in addition to other permits required by ferc. over the last 70 years this requirement that began in 1938, ironically, was hardly noticed anywhere in the united states because we were importing natural gas into the united states. now, the united states can become the saudi arabia of natural gas. by exporting. and so technology has changed and we have an abundant amount of natural gas here in our own country. we can update the 1938 law, dismantle the bureaucratic roadblocks and take the d.o.e., the department of energy, i didn't say injury, i said energy, out of the libes granting process altogether. i think washington, this country should be supporting, not stone walling the development of this valuable resource. and we can do that by

legislation. i've introduced legislation today in fact that would have the department of energy expedite the approval process for exporting natural gas to the ukraine, former soviet republics, and to europe. let's get on with it. sure it will take some time to get all the logistics set up so we can actually send it to these countries but we should help them and we should sell it to them, give them an alternative. we could do it on an economically good basis for these countries and for the united states. and we can encourage folks to look to the west as many of the ukrainians already want to do and give them an alternative. the second thing we can do, to let the russians know that we don't really approve of putin moving into other people's countries just like hitler moves into other people's countries is to look at it diplomatically in

the sense that until the russians move out of somebody else's land, the ukrainians, then they shouldn't be getting any diplomat exvisas into the yeats. you stay out of the united states. you respect the rule of law. the international rule of law. don't be an aggressor nation. come into the world community of nonaggressing nations like russia says they are. so make there be some consequences for this activity of invading other countries. and what are the consequences? no visas for russian diplomats to come to the united states. that's a god place to start. meanwhile, let's approve and expedite exporting natural gas to the former soviet republics. i've introduced two bills that would do both of those things, something we can do immediately to let the ukrainians know they

have a friend in the yeats that we really do believe in supporting freedom, letting the nation itself, the ukrainians, figure out what they want to do, who they want to rule over them, let them figure out that process and it is difficult and they disagree as i am speaking tonight on what course they should take but let's not let the russians force them to become another puppet of putin. i hope we can move this legislation as fast as we possibly can and i will yield back the balance of my time. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the entleman yields back his time.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain a motion. mr. poe: mr. speaker. i move that the house adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye.

those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly th

writing, one that's been proposed, one that's still kind of in the drafting stage, which both would attack greenhouse gas emissions from future and existing power plants, power plants take up about 40% of the u.s. greenhouse gases. this bill would basically say e.p.a. can't require coal-burning power plants to apture their emissions until some technological steps have happened and the republicans are denying it happened. >> the other energy bills coming up this week deal with coal mining regulations and also with environmental impact statements. what more should we know about those bills? >> there's one that deals with

mountain top removal coal mining, an extremely controversial form of coal mining that takes place in states like west virginia where the entire top of the mountain is removed, blown up. i don't think the white house has take an formal position on that bill. they have said on the first bill you mentioned that they would veto it if it were to pass. neither one of these bills is likely to pass the senate if they pass the house. the house may very well approve them but they're not really -- nobody really thinks they'll become law any time soon. these as well as arguably a portion of the president's budget are expected to play some significant roles in messaging for the mid term election this is year. >> in terms of coal energy, energy from coal, how has the administration's view on coal changed or has it over the last five years? >> it hasn't really changed that

much except that when the president outlined his second term climate agenda last june, there were some striking provisions in that that were aimed at the coal industry, both here and abroad. in addition to restricting the emissions from coal burning power plants in ways that would most likely make it economically infeasible to pretty much ever again build a coal burning power plant in the u.s., the administration has also attempted to cut off the funding for any overseas coal plant projects which would basically hurt exports of u.s.-mined coal. the coal industry basically sees both of those steps as well as other initiatives as direct assaults on their livelihood. >> bob king is energy editor with politico, uh you can follow his reporting at politico.com and on twitter at bkingdc.

>> the house held a hearing about the i.r. is targeting groups with tea party or patriot iner that name, the i.r.s. allegedly held these groups to higher standards when they applied for tax exempt standards. lois lerner was expected to testify but she invoked her right to remain silent.

>> the committee will come to order. we are here today to continue a hearing that began on may 22, 2013, called the i.r.s. targeting americans for their political beliefs. the purpose of the hearing is to gather facts about how and why the i.r.s. improperly scrutinized certain organizations that applied for tax exempt status. today we have recalled ms. lois lerner, the former director of exempt organizations at the i.r.s. at the may peared 22, 2013, hearing you should a subpoena and that subpoena remains in effect. before we resume our questioning, i'm going to briefly state for the record a few developments that have occurred since the hearing began nine months ago. these are important for the record and for ms. lerner to

know and understand. on may 22, 2013, after being sworn in at the start of the hearing, ms. lerner made a voluntary statement under oath discussing her position at the i.r.s. and professing her innocence. ms. lerner did not provide the committee with any advance notification of her intention to make such a statement during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement -- such a statement. during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement she spoke in detail about core issues under consideration at the hearing when she stated, i have not done anything wrong, i have not broken any laws. i have not violated any i.r.s. rules or regulations, and i have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. ms. lerner then stated her intention to invoke the fifth

amendment and then in response to a request by ranking member cummings, she confirmed orally the authenticity of a document that was entered into the record. she subsequently reinvoked her fifth amendment rights in response to several questions, she then refused to provide any substantive response to those questions. at that hearing, a member of the committee, mr. gowdy, stated that ms. lerner had waived her right to invoke the fifth amendment because she had given voluntary statement professing her innocence. i temporarily excused ms. lerner from the hearing and subsequently recessed the hearing to consider whether ms. lerner had in fact waived her fifth amendment rights. meanwhile, the committee's investigation proceeded without ms. lerner's testimony. to date we have conducted 33

bipartisan transcribed interviews of witnesses from the i.r.s. we have heard witnesses' testimony during five committee and subcommittee hearings. because the i.r.s. is not full -- has not fully cooperated with the committee's investigation, i have issued three subpoenas for documents. the i.r.s. continues to withhold some of ms. lerner's emails from the committee. documents and testimony show that ms. lerner is uniquely positioned to provide testimony that will help the committee better understand how and why the i.r.s. targeted conservative groups. at a business meeting on june 28, 2013, the committee approved a resolution rejecting ms. learner's claim of fifth amendment privilege based on her aiver at the may 22, 2013.

after that vote, having made the determination that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights, the committee recalled her to appear today to answer questions pursuant to rules. the committee voted and found that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights by making a statement on may 22, 2013. addition -- and additionally by affirming documents making fifth amendment rights. if she continues to refuse to answer questions from our members while she's under a subpoena, the committee may proceed to consider whether she should be held in contempt. since it's been 9 1/2 months since we started this hearing, refirm to ask her to

her oath. let the record indicate the witness did answer in the affirmative. one, rner, put up slide please. on october 10 -- in october, 2010, you told a duke university group, and i quote, the supreme court dealt a huge blow overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn't give directly to political campaigns. ms. learner, what exactly -- ms. wanted to fix the

problem caused by citizens united, what does that mean. could you please turn the mike on. >> moimy counsel advised me i have notwayed my constitutional rights under the fifth amendment and under his advice i decline to answer any subject matter in this hearing. >> so you're not going to tell us who wanted to fix the problem under citizens united. >> under the advice of counsel i invoke my fifth amendment right and refuse to answer the question. >> in february, 2011, you emailed your colleagues and the following. tea party matter very dangerous. this could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether citizens united overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules.

counsel and judy kindell need to be on this one please. crinecy should probably not -- cincy should probably not -- all in caps, have these cases. what did you mean by cincy shouldn't have these cases? >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer the question. >> ms. lerner, why would you say tea party cases were dangerous. >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully invoke my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, you emailed your subordinates about initiating a, arenthesis c-4 project and wrote, we need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se political project. why were you worried about this being perceived as a political project?

>> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully inters my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, mike ceto, manager of e.o. technical in washington testified that you ordered tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. he testified, and i quote, she sent me emails saying that when these cases need to go through -- i'll say it again, she sent me email saying that when these cases need to go through multitier review and they will eventually have to go to ms. kindell and the chief counsel's office. why did you order tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in june, 2011,

pawes ested that holly obtain a copy of the tax exempt application filed by crossroads g.p.s. so that your senior technical advisor, judy kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for you. s. lerner, why did you want to personally order that they pull crossroads g.p.s., karl roves' organization's application. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner in june of 2012, you were part of an email exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on litical speech for 501c4 groups and in trent sis your quote, off plan in 2013. ms. lerner, what does off plan mean? >> on the advice of my counsel i

respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in february of 2014, president obama stated that there was not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting. ms. lerner, do you believe that there is not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting of conservatives? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, on saturday, our committee's general counsel sent an email to your attorney saying, i understand that ms. lerner is willing to testify and she is requesting a one week delay in talking to the chairman -- excuse me. in talking to the chairman, wanted to make sure that was right. your lawyer in response to that question gave a one-word email response. yes.

are you still seeking a one-week delay in order to testify? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to nswer that question. >> ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. i can see no point in going further. i have no expectation that mrs. lerner will cooperate with this committee and therefore we shall adjourn. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, i have a statement. i have a procedural question, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have a procedural question. mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you just cannot do this. this is -- we're better than

that as a country, we're better than that as a committee. i've asked for a few minutes to -- >> we're adjourned. >> i don't care. the fact is i'm asking a question. [inaudible] i want to ask a question. what are we hiding? what's the big deal? may i ask my question? may i state my statement? >> you're all free to leave, we've adjourned, but the gentleman may ask his question. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i have a one procedural question. and it goes to trying to help you get the information by the way that you just asked. >> what is your question? >> let me say what i have to say. i've listened to you for the last 15 or 20 minutes. let me say what i have to say. i have one procedural question. >> ms. lerner, you're released. >> i'd like to take the time to make some brief points. for the past year, the central

republican accusation -- >> we're adjourned -- >> before our committee -- inaudible] >> thank you. >> [inaudible] >> shame, shame, shame. >> -- a president's political enemy. effectively lied about it during the election year in the fall. he continued -- [inaudible] >> if you will sit down and allow me to ask a question, i am a member of the congress of he united states of america. >> well -- >> we have people here, each of who represent 700,000 people. you cannot have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that and there's absolutely unamerican. >> hear, hear.

>> we had a hearing, it's adjourned. i gave you the opportunity to ask a question. >> do i have a question -- i do have a question. >> i gave you the opportunity. >> what are you hiding? >> he's pleading the fifth. [laughter] >> -- to discuss the republican staff report claiming that ms. lerner was, quote, at center of the effort to target conservative groups. although we provided a copy of this report to fox, he refused my -- [inaudible] provided to the members of the committee. the fact however does not support these claims. we have now only 38 employees who have all told us the same thing. that the white house was not directed, subjected or even knew about it at the time it was occurring. and none -- [inaudible] any

political motivation. the inspector general, russell george, told us the same thing. he found no evidence of any white house involvement or political motivation. instead, the very first line of the results of his report says that it began with -- [inaudible] who i quote, developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words tea party in their names, end of quote. our committee confirmed this fact when we interviewed a screening group manager from cincinnati. this manager explain -- explained that his employees were the ones who first came up with the inappropriate search terms in 2010. he denied any political motivation and he made his point by explaining that he is, a quote, conservative republican. i release this entire interview

transcript eight months ago for anyone who wants to read it for themselves. the inspector general's report also found that they did not discover use of this criteria until a year later, in 2011. which when he learned about them, and i quote again from the report, she immediately rected the criteria be changed, end of quote. mr. george's chief investigator also reviewed more than 5,500 emails from i.r.s. employees and, again, found no evidence of political motivation. over the past year, our committee has obtained hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses. the i.r.s. has spent more than $14 million responding to congressional investigations. we have identified absolutely no evidence to support allegations of a political conspiracy against conservative groups. what we have identified, however, is evidence of gross

mismanagement. ms. lerner failed to discover these employees were using these search terms for a year and even after she ordered them to stop, they returned to using similar inappropriate criteria and she failed to inform congress about what she knew. so i do not -- so i do have serious questions for ms. lerner and i'm very disappointed that i will not be able to ask them today. but i do not support the republican conclusion that she waived her constitutional right nine months ago when she inadvocated the fifth amendment and i do not believe a court would uphold that conclusion. now, the chairman's gone, but i'd like to ask him a few procedural questions involving having a proper -- [inaudible]. as i said a little bit earlier, her attorney -- if she loses something, nobody gains anything. on february 26, her attorney sent a letter to the committee saying that he met with the

chairman's staff last month. at that meeting her attorney said, and i quote, the staff asked if i would provide a proper testimony she would give and i agreed to do that, end of quote. but that did not happen. as i understand it, accepting the proffer does not grant immunity to the witness it. does not bind the committee in any way. instead, it allows the committee to obtain information without requiring the witness to waive her fifth amendment rights. i was not invited to the meeting last month when her attorney and i cannot -- and i have not been included in any negotiations but it seems to me that the committee loses nothing by accepting this proffer and in fact we may gain important information. as a matter of fact, the very questions that the chairman just asked ms. lerner when she invoked her fifth amendment rights, those are the kind of questions that can be answered in a proffer.

so i wanted to ask the chairman whether the committee can schedule a time, preferably this week, for all committee members to hear the proffer from ms. lerner's attorney and ith that i yield back. yes, sir. >> i just want to note for the record i find it supreme irony that the chairman of this committee would unilaterally side -- [inaudible] that an american citizen has waived her fifth amendment rights while actually exercising his fifth amendment right not to answer your question to be asked of the minority of this committee. > thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> after today's hearing on the alleged i.r.s. targeting of political groups, oversight committee chairman darrell issa and the committee's top democrat aligea cummings spoke with reporters. >> we had a hearing today in the committee in which we asked ms. lerner whose lawyer had indicated that under certain conditions she would testify, she chose not to testify. afterar an exhaustive seven questions, i determined that she was not under any circumstances going to testify and pursuant to an already

completed hearing other than her testimony, i adjourned. at this point we will continue our investigation into the i.r.s. targeting of conservative groups without the testimony of ms. lerner. are there any questions? >> why did you not let mr. cummings -- [inaudible] >> there were no -- he was not directing questions toward the witness and the committee had already adjourned. >> why did you adjourn before turning to your colleague and asking him -- >> pursuant to the committee, we were -- we recessed only to determine whether or not we could get her to give testimony. once it was determined she could not give testimony, there was no question before us. mr. cummings did not raise a point of privilege or a point of order and in fact i did recognize him when he said he had a question. he went into an opening statement. opening statements had already been completed. there were 40 members sitting at the dais and we had already

adjourned. therefore i left because there was no question pending. >> [inaudible] >> because he was talking into a mike in an adjourned meeting. the fact is mr. cummings came to make a point of his objections to the process week of been going through. he was actually slandering me at the moment that the mikes did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation. this had been a bipartisan investigation, by multiple committees in which we had testimony in multiple hearings including mr. jordan's subcommittee, in which it was very clear there was targeting of conservative groups, in which there were people who were acting outside the norm. we're going to continue our investigation. but just because mr. cummings would like to have a more convenient truth doesn't give him the right to make a speech. i went through a process of asking questions to determine whether ms. lerner would in

fact testify. she made it clear through multiple questions that she would not do it and she would not do it with the delay that er attorney had asked for. i have exhausted any possibility of her speaking. at this point we have attempted to, multiple ways, including making it clear we could do a one-week delay. they changed their mind and declined that. we're going to go forward with the investigation. mr. jordan has additional work to do. >> are you considering -- [inaudible] >> you know, that's certainly something that has to be considered. at this point we've been looking for the truth. we had hoped that ms. lerner, particularly in light of so many direct emails that are now with us in evidence, in both republicans and democrats both have the same things that we asked the questions on today, we had hoped to get answers from her. we'll continue to seek answers from other areas. but it's very clear that, for example, why did she ask for a cross roads g.p.s.'s

application to be scrutinized by name? we will probably not know that because that is something that is only in her mind. >> you said that the hearing -- [inaudible] to find out whether or not she was going to talk or not. you still asked several questions, yet you did not give her democratic colleague that same opportunity. >> he was not intending to ask her any questions. it had been determined that she -- dn't >> he didn't even have the chance. >> mr. cummings said he had questions to ask. instead he began making an opening statement. even after the committee had been adjourned. therefore the committee stood adjourned. >> how much of this is a political play for republicans in the election? >> none, not a sled of it. not -- shred of it. not a smidgen of it. not a smidgen of it. the fact is that this targeting is something that the president initially came out outraged against, as we were. as we began our investigation we discovered that there was clear differential treatment of

conservative groups, particularly if their name included patriot or tea party. and for some reason the administration has gone from supportive of this kind of bad behavior when they said it was only in cincinnati, to opposing and saying there isn't a smidgen of evidence. >> there's concern among the republican leadership that the object of this will effect -- >> i have no idea what's in the minds of republicans other than the ones on this committee. the ones on this committee have sat through hearings, reviewed information and are prepared to continue the investigation like we do all our investigations. any other questions? >> [inaudible] >> as you could see from our questioning today, we have continued to gather facts around ms. lerner's absence of testimony. it would have allowed us to bring this investigation to a probably pretty quick close if she'd been willing to answer those questions. without it, we will undoubtedly have a few more questions to

try to find out things that she could have answered quickly today. >> are you still confident you'll get to the bottom of this? >> it may well be that we have gotten to the bottom of it. at this point roads lead to ms. lerner. the witness who took the fifth. and that becomes -- she becomes one of the key characters at this point. had she been willing to explain those emails which were provided through separate subpoenas, then we could have perhaps brought this to a close. without that it may dead end with ms. lerner. >> what's the process of pursuing contempt? >> there's committee rules on that, i'll go through it. we're going to confer afterwards. any other questions, i think mr. cummings would like time. >> [inaudible] >> we're going to -- we're going to -- this camera's everywhere. we will confer to see our next

steps. but ms. lerner is not our primary concern today. nor is the contempt. obviously we're going to continue investigating others at the i.r.s. and make a determination of how we can, you know, you asked a question earlier of, do you think she's going to testify? i have less than likely, but there is in fact a possibility that given a federal judge's orders she would testify. so we're going to have to consider all of those possibilities of whether or not there's any way to get testimony by a key character who very, very clearly had information and isn't willing to give it to us. thank you. ok, thank you. >> today

i wanted to make clear that from the very beginning this as been an effort to blame the white house for or claim that the white house targeted political enemies of the president through the i.r.s. we have now interviewed 38 hundreds of ees, thousands of pages of documents from the i.r.s. have been reviewed. $14 million-plus and counting in man hours have been expended in addressing the various investigations with regard to the i.r.s. and still there has not been any evidence whatsoever that there was political motivation in regard to this targeting and

in regard to these efforts, nor has there been any evidence with regard to the white house having anything to do with what the i.r.s. was doing in this case. what i was trying to get to today was, first of all, to make the statement that i just made. but to also do something else. ms. ently the attorney for lerner had said at some point that he might be willing to give a proffer. a proffer is basically an attorney saying what his client would say. now, if you'll note, there were at least four or five, maybe six questions that chairman issa asked and i would have loved to have heard the answers to those questions too. but a proffer would have allowed us to -- republicans and democrats -- to listen to

what the attorney in his own words would have said that his client would have said. so we would at least have the information that the chairman was going after. that doesn't stop him from moving on contempt, it doesn't protect her, none of that. but at least it would have given us an opportunity to hear what the answers would have been. i want to get to the bottom of this too. after all, it's been more than nine months and i want you to be reminded that mr. george, the i.g., who was -- we -- appointed by republicans -- by a republican president said that in all of his work he found no political motivation and he found no white house involvement in this whatsoever. and so, that's what it was all about. today i felt that it was appropriate that the members of

the democratic side have their say. as you can see, we were basically shut out completely and i continuously remind people that each one of us represents 700,000 people-plus. that we bring something to this table too. and that we want to make sure that we get to the truth. am tired of cherrypick aing -- cherrypicking information, of sending just a few lines from various transcripts, and what we want is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. that's all we want. and so you saw another example today of here we were ready to listen to ms. lerner, our members wanted to hear from her, and just for the ranking member to be able to make a statement and the chairman was well aware that i wanted to

make a statement and ask a question, but he shut down the hearing. ladies and gentlemen, we're better than that. we're a better country than that, we're a better committee than that, and i said to the chairman on many occasions that when things like this happen it goes against the integrity of the committee. when we don't seek the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we cherrypick it goes against the integrity of the committee. i remind you and as i close with this, that this is a committee of oversight and government reform. but in order to reform you have to have all the facts. you can't just leave out the facts. that you don't like. and include the ones that you do. it doesn't work that way. no court that i know of operates like that and no committee should. we're better than that and hopefully we'll move forward in a way where we're working together. >> [inaudible] >> you saw what happened.

that wasn't bipartisan. let me tell you something. she just requested the question, was this a bipartisan hearing? not one member of the democratic side had an opportunity to say one syllable before the chairman adjourned. that's not bipartisan. wait a minute, hold on. when the negotiations were held, these so-called negotiations with the lawyer, we weren't invited to that. democrats weren't invited to that. the press got the report, the republican report, on the i.r.s., got the report yesterday. some of you all got it. have we gotten it yet? we still don't have it. is that bipartisan? no. that is not bipartisan. >> you have in your long career ever heard anyone say shut it down and not allow a member -- >> only in this committee. it's happened once or twice in this committee already this year. and it was by chairman issa. >> chairman issa said this was not a political -- there's no political connection to this investigation, to the elections

in november. you have had any conversations with senior members of the democratic party about how this will play out -- >> no, no, i have not. what we have done, and i applaud my members of my committee, i'm very proud of them, they've come here seeking the truth. we really do -- and i've said this many times. it is very important for us to make sure that government operates properly and operates effectively and efficiently. and all of our members are determined to make that happen. period. and i've said it again, no matter where the evidence may lead, let's go down that path. but don't do the things that i've seen issa do where if he doesn't like something he doesn't present it. the fella -- the first person -- it's interesting that we the et to have before us man who said he started all of this. the conservative republican in cincinnati who said, a 21-year

veteran of the i.r.s., who said this is not political. that he did it because he was trying to figure out how to deal with the c-4's. so we'll hopefully again move forward from here. but i just wanted to make it clear as to what happened in there. thank you. i'm not going to get into disrespect. i've been practicing law for 30, 40 years. and so you see these kind of things, but the thing that we are determined is not to be distracted. to get to the truth. and so i see it as a distraction. i don't worry about the disrespect. ok? thank you. >> [inaudible] >> no, just based upon the expertses that we talked to, a man who used to be counsel for ethics, is it ethics? yeah. house counsel. he says she didn't waive. i think that when it comes to rights, i think we have to be careful with people's rights.

and, again, we have to keep in mind that before she came in the first time, her lawyer sent a letter saying that she was going to take advantage of her fifth amendment rights and then she came in and said the same thing. so i think her intention was definitely to do that. there may be differing opinions but we felt comfortable that -- and keep in mind, one of the things i did also ask for before we voted the last time was to bring in the experts and let the committee have an opportunity to hear from the experts. again, chairman issa refused that. i got to go, guys. thank you all. >> thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] >> treasury secretary testified on capitol hill today about the president's 2015 budget request. he was also asked about the russian military intervention in ukraine. here's a look. >> before i begin, let me say a

few words about the situation in ukraine. as president obama has explained in no uncertain terms, the steps russia has taken to violate ukraine's sovereignty, ukraine's territorial integrity, are a breach of international law. at this time we're looking into a wide range of options including sanctions and ways to increase russia's political and economic isolation. our ultimate goal is to de-escalate the situation in ukraine. as the ukrainian government prepares for elections in may, it's critical that the international community support their efforts to restore economic stability. i've spoken with ukrainian prime minister a number of times now and he's told me that his government is ready to adopt vital economic reforms. we've been working closely with the international partners and congress to develop an assistance package that will help the ukrainian government implement the reforms needed to restore financial stability and return to economic growth. the united states has developed a package of bilateral

assistance focused on meeting ukraine's most pressing needs. this package will include a $1 billion loan guarantee and i.m.f. legislation which will support the i.m.f.'s capacity to lend additional resources to ukraine and help preserve continued u.s. leadership within its important institution at a critical time. while the united states will not increase our total financial commitment to the i.m.f. by approving the 2010 reforms, it is important to note that for every $is the united states contributes to the i.m.f., other countries provide $4 more. at a time when the u.s. is at the forefront of international calls at urging the fund to play a central and active first responder role in ukraine, it's imperative that we secure passage of i.m.f. legislation now so we can show support for the i.m.f. in this critical moment and preserve our leading influential voice in this institution. i want to be clear that even as we deal with the unfolding events in ukraine, we continue to focus on our central objective, expanding opportunity for all americans.

>> the situation in ukraine was also one of the topics at prime minister's question time this morning in the british house of commons. david cameron called russia's military intervention in ukraine, quote, completely unacceptable. this is just over half an hour. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] key . she's quite right to raise this issue. >> order. questions to the prime minister. sir peter bone. >> thank you, mr. speaker. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues -- mr. speaker, this morning i had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this house, i shall have further such meetings later today. >> peter bone. >> mr. speaker, -- [inaudible] 2000 new jobs. local conservative councils, north telegraph, the listening campaign and my listening campaign have all supported this

proposal. in nine years in parliament i have never known of the development that has so much public support. could be prime minister is his best effort to ensure that the outcome of the public inquiry is announced as soon as possible? >> i know my honorable friend campaigned vigorously for his constituents and for local businesses and for job creating developments like this one. as i'm sure he is aware i'm not able to get involved in specific planning decisions i understand the decision on this application will be made as it's possible and that was all the secretary of state taking to account all the representations including from the honorable gentleman that he receives. >> mr. ed miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, the loss of a country has been watching events in ukraine with great concern to does the prime minister agree that russians actions in surrounding ukraine military sites violating ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are

completely without any justification? does he further agreed these actions deserve to be condemned unreservedly across the international community? >> first of all i agree with the right honorable gym that what russia has done is completely unacceptable. we should be clear about our national interest and our aim in all of this. our national interest is that we have a strong interest in a world where the rule of law is upheld, where territorial integrity is suspected, stability is a vital part of our long-term economic plan and we should be clear our aim is to deter further russian military action and to de-escalate the situation and he's completely right to say that the action by the russian government should be condemned by the whole world. >> mr. speaker, i'm sure we agree there needs to be continued pressure on the russian government and i will come to that issue but all members will welcome the talks that are going on as we speed between u.s. secretary of state john kerry and foreign minister lavrov. given the fertility of the situation on the ground, does

the prime minister agreed one important outcome from these talks would be if they lead to direct high level talks between russia and ukraine? >> in order to de-escalate the situation the most important thing that should be arranged is a forum for discussions in which the russians and ukrainians can speak to each other. there have been some contacts between russia ministers and ukrainian ministers. this morning their meetings taking place in paris covering other issues as well but there has been some progress in putting together a contact group, an idea i proposed to the prime minister back in january to start having a group of countries around russia and ukraine to encourage such dialogue to take place. that's the single most important thing that could help to de-escalate the situation. >> mr. speaker, clearly we all up for a good outcome from those talks by the eu also has a crucial role to play. does he agree the eu at the leaders of some of tomorrow must show it is up for the task of dealing with the biggest

security crisis on this continent since kosovo? given the issues raised by the uk's opposition from the document, can he tell us what uk will be -- including keeping open the prospect of trade sanctions? >> first of all it is important that the european union shows the unity of purpose and a clear voice tomorrow at the leaders meeting. what i think we need to do is first of all the absolute clear that the status quo we're faced with today where russian troops are outside their bases in the crimea is acceptable. as i said, costs and consequences need to follow from the. that is why, for instance, with suspended preparations for the g8 meeting. indeed, it is hard to see in these current circumstances how we g8 meeting can properly go ahead. wwe have withdrawn royal visits in minister visits to the sochi paralympic games. othere are further steps we should consider even as we look

at the current status quote, but we also need to consider what extra steps, what extra as i put it political, economic and diplomatic steps to take to discourage russia. >> i completely share his view about the g8 and the other matters that he mentioned. let me raise one of issue within. when he was leader of the opposition in 2008, prior to the invasion of georgy said this, -- shopping on a week in the russian armies can march into the countries are russian shoppers carry on because he agree with me that we do not see the required action from russia we should look at asset freezes and troubled restrictions on individuals so that russia is clear about a consequence of his actions of? >> as i have put it women look at the diplomatic economic and political steps we can take nothing should be off the table. we've already taken some important steps in terms of

ukrainian corrupt oligarchs in making sure that their assets are properly dealt with, including here in the uk if that's the case. he should rule out other things for the future but as i try to explain today i think there are those steps we need to take in respect of the current unacceptable situation and didn't agree with our european partners and our american partners, and i'll be speaking to president obama this afternoon, and meeting with angela merkel the for the european council tomorrow, agree with what further steps should be taken as well. >> i'm sure he will push for as broad agreement as possible at the eu council and we welcome that. let me ask you about the ukraine government and support for them. is a great part of the way forward is providing them with that support, while making clear to them that the government needs to be inclusive and protect the rights of the russian speaking population within the ukraine? does he agree there' there is nn for russia to believe that strengthening ties to ukraine and the eu needs to be at the

expense of russian? >> i think it is important to write audible chairman says they should not be seen as a tug-of-war between the european union and russia. we should be in favor of the ukrainian people being able to choose their own future. in my view this has been as much about the ukrainian people wanting to lean towards a better relationship with the european union as much about that as wanting to get rid of the him calling -- appalling level of corruption that had to put up with in their government. i think that is the key thing. i think it's welcomed the foreign secretary and right that he was the first international leader to go to kiev and meet with ukrainian leaders. he made two important points. one is they must make sure they have an inclusive set of institutions and rules and laws in the ukraine, and did not discriminate against minorities or russian speakers but also we stand ready as members of the european union, as leading players in the international monetary fund to help the ukraine and in its hour of need.

there are all sorts of steps the new ukrainian government to make in order to make it possible but if they can do that then wishede should stand by them in their hour of need. >> i welcome that, let me say this finally. all of us recognize this is a delicate and dangerous moment of international security. it is a combination of diplomacy, result in international community, and support for the ukraine government and ukrainian self-determination that is the best hope for securing and into this crisis. i can assure the prime minister the government will have our full support. >> i'm very grateful of what the right honorable showman has said this morning. just as we need to see tomorrow a voice of unity and clarity from the countries of the european union, not always easy to get -- 20 different nations around the table but it's also very welcome there is such a clear and unified voice went out from this house. to say to the russian government what you've done is wrong, what you've done should not be

allowed to stand and still be costs and consequences not only for what has been done already but for the costs and consequences if you take this further. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last week a judge sentenced a man nine years in prison for causing the death by dangerous driving of two teenage girls. given that about his exact -- is for you for life does the trick agree it's high time we look again at the maximum sentence by looking at death by dangerous driving? >> can i congratulate my friend on her happy news of the weekend, and assure members across the house will want to join in on that. >> here, here. >> the point about death and dangerous driving is an issue that was raised prior to questions last week and as i said then i think it's important that the lord chancellor and his department are carefully about what more we can do to make sure we send the clearest possible message about the acceptability of this crime. >> thank you, mr. speaker. last july the prime minister

rightly promised legislation banning internet race convicts who can explain to parents why classic scene of his criminal justice in courts bill doesn't ban simulated child abuse are staged rape online? >> the honorable lady has a long track record of arguing about these issues and i think it was very welcome that we made the announcement today and raise and that is being carried through. i look very carefully at the measures that she is raising an issue she is raising out. i think we do have a good record about putting in place stronger internet filters, about working with the industry to make sure that searches for unacceptable terms can be made and for separate legislators like banning rape porn. >> in 2009 there were 610 -- [inaudible] out of work. last month that number --

[inaudible] creating opportunities for young people fo who never again see te massive waste of young talent -- [shouting] >> i think but are no friend is right to raise national apprenticeship week to it is a really important moment to advertise businesses, large and small the advantage is of taking on apprentices. what we will see during this parliament is to million of partnerships start. that is what we are aiming for. 1.6 million have already taken place. as he says unemployment in his own constituency has fallen as has the claimant count and we want to see many more apprentices and what is a small from coming for taking on the first apprentice. >> in 2006 a seven year old and

a little brother died of carbon monoxide poisoning caused by a faulty boiler at their home. their father and his partner narrowly escaped with their lives. after seven agonizing years at the inquest is about to begin. the legal aid agency has refused the family funding to be legally represented at the inquest and on friday thomas cook tried to prevent the inquest from even taking place. will the prime minister meet with me and the parents fear why it is imperative that the parents are legally represented at this inquest so the full facts are learned surrounding their children to death so that no other british family suffers a similar tragedy when they take their children on holiday? >> i do remember this, absolutely tragic case and its appalling it is taken so long for the inquest to take place. when you've lost a job you want to know the answers and why it happened and what it could have been prevented. and that lessons will be learned for the future so i'm very

content to arrange the meetings that she talks about to help in this case and to make sure the foreign office who do i think an excellent job at helping people when they're dealing with issues overseas is doing all they can to help her constituents. >> unemployment has dropped from 3.4% -- [shouting] and equally important the youth unemployment has dropped 6.3% to 4.4% since 2010. with the prime minister agree with me that chancellors long-term economic plan is working? and following the recent success of the jobs fair we join me in thanking braintree district council, jobs district council, job center plus an eight night for all the hard work they're doing and encouraging local businesses to hire young people. [shouting] >> my honorable friend has a very strong track record of campaigning and fighting for these issues.

he cofounded the million jobs campaign and let's recognize the fact we've created a million new jobs, more than a million under this government. one of the things my friend was pushing for was the under 21 should not have to pay national insurance contributions when they are employed and that something brought in in the autumn state what you think it will make a huge difference. the braintree youth jobs there is also made a difference locally. i know the party opposite seemed to have grown as soon as unemployment falling. but the fact is it is falling across the country and that's a very welcome sign that are long-term economic plan is working. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister sure my astonishment, decision announced yesterday that "the express" which covers train services across the whole of the north of england is to lose one in eight of its trains which are to be

transferred to a different realm for the greater comfort and convenience of commuters in the south of england? isn't that your constituency? [shouting] >> is he aware -- is he aware that services -- already amongst the most overcrowded in the country? and witty -- [shouting] >> order. the right honorable gentleman will be heard. however, long it takes. the quicker people remember their manners, the better. the right honorable gentleman. spinning i jus just a tip membes

opposite, try to does maybe a laughing matter to them. it is certainly not a laughing matter to people in the north of england. >> here, here. >> could he bear in mind that this decision has been made without the agreement of the company but -- [inaudible] >> prime minister. [shouting] >> order. border. i was there to the right honorable gentleman that the question was friendly too long. the prime minister. >> i will look very carefully at the point the right honorable gentleman raises. what i would say of course with the announced plans to electrified the railway line which i think will make a big difference and also we are going ahead with the northern hub that will also make a difference and so these are big, big steps forward. i hope he won't find it too cheeky if i point out that the lines that both he and i use of course is also received a lot of

extra investment under this government and he now enjoys a double track line we makes his journey from my constituency into london. [laughter] [shouting] >> thank you. not me? >> not you. [laughter] spent another time if the honorable gentleman is lucky. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my thanks to the prime minister for all the effort in securing -- [inaudible] can ask -- [inaudible] >> it was a huge pleasure with the honorable gentleman to visit and see the quality of the apprenticeships that ea systems

is offering a bill in the typhoon aircraft and actually superb aircraft. i can give you my assurance that i will go on banging the drum for british exports, including defense exports. we had a very good progress with the order which will secure and shape our jobs in his constituency. and, frankly, i was criticized by the party opposite for taking defense contractors on trade missions overseas. they don't think it's appropriate i think it is appropriate. i think we should be standing up for defense industry and defensive jobs. >> will the prime minister ended speculation over the future of the hunting act by confirming that he doesn't intend to use a statutory to repay or remember the act live removing the limits on the number of dogs that can be used? >> well, this will quite probably be a matter for the house of commons, as he will know what has happened is a group of welsh and other members of parliament have looked at a particular problem of pest

control in upland areas of whales and other parts of the country. they are making a proposal. the proposal will be properly examined by the department and and and the house of commons will be able to decide. >> thank you, mr. speaker. further to my honorable friend's question and during national apprenticeships week, we should so but the fact that in the last year half a million people, nearly doubled, nearly doubled the number who start in 2009-10. we shouldn't -- with the prime minister agree with me when you to do more to incentivize schools to promote apprenticeships and assume more still to get employed to come forward, particularly for young people? >> my friend speaks about this with great commitment because of his chairmanship of the education select committee. the point in i've discussed which is very important as we need to make sure we're giving the clearest possible

information to our young people in schools about the choices they can make. i think the academic part has been well set out and well understood, including all of britain's teachers big we needed understood what opportunities are for vacation will education -- vocational education because you have to turn long-term. you can carry out a degree turning and learning at the same time. >> this year is the eu third year attacking foodways. given the absolute scandal of 40% of the food being wasted in this country and huge number of people we know happen to good food banks because they can't afford to feed themselves and their families, with the prime minister throw his weight in the initiative and support efforts to reduce foodways do for this country? >> i think it's important to tackle the issue of food waste in a number of important debates have been held in this house and in westminster hall about this issue. i think the most important thing in terms of helping people with

their weekly budgeted to make sure we keep growing the economy, hitting people back to work, creating jobs and also to keep peoples pakistan to get more of their own money to spend as they choose. >> thank you, mr. speaker. over the last few months in somerset we've had a deluge of film cameras which is now receding to a barely to go but the floods are still with us. this week we will have reduced the local strategy. that shows that long-term local management of the rivers cannot be met within the constraints of local government finance. will he commit to me that whatever needs to be changed will be changed and give us a sustainable management for the future? >> i would commend all of the somerset mps for working together extremely well, bringinbringtogether all the los including ea, local council, farmers and others to try and come up with a ride a long-term

solution for the people of somerset. i agree with them the cameras and the press have now departed but it's important we don't take our eye off the important issue of during the somerset levels. i'm getting reports another for choosing the report from him and other colleagues about what needs to be done. >> thank you, mr. speaker. we have known for months that our aid in the department are in trouble but now almost 30,000 this is have been -- outside a hospital. does the primus network at not having got a grip on this issue a bit more quickly? >> the point i would make to the honorable lady is that we have met the a&e targets more time this winter than when the shadow health secretary was sitting in the cabinet with responsibility for the nhs. i would commend what are doctors and nurses and a&e department of done because they are coping with around 120 million more a&e attendances every year than when we came to power and 2010 but i

think they've done magnificent work and are doing it on the basis of having not only many thousand more doctors that i can tell the house we now have in the nhs 2000 more nurses than 2010. that is more nurses in our nhs than anytime than -- [shouting] and that's a record this government can be proud of. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the village of barrow has to than 300 houses. the local authority have given permission for just over 100 new houses there. but the planning inspector has overturned the refusal of the local authority and will oppose 504 more houses into that village against the wishes of the local mp, the local authority, and the local people. will my right honorable friend look again at the workings of the planning inspector to ensure

that from now on the planning inspector puts the wishes of local people at the heart of the localism act as he intended to? >> i will look very carefully at the specific incident that the honorable member brings to the house. the point i would make is this. that under the localism act, local authorities are able to produce a local plan and give had agreed which will give local people greater control over what is built and where and in the meantime things are judged against the national planning policy framework which does have protections for green belt. it does insist on going ahead with brownfield development and it does take into account pre-existing local plants. if that means -- if that needs to be clarified, clarify it we will. >> first, the government held northern counselors to stop the caps in the hopes of a handout. then the high court ruled government cuts in european

funding for livable and chest it was legal. what does all this essay about government? >> i think what i would say to the honorable lady is, of course liverpool, the city she represents, has huge needs in terms of funding and i believe the funding that it gets reflects those needs but if you look at the spending in liverpool, for 2014, it is 2595 pounds per dwelling. now the needs of her constituency are much greater than the needs of my constituency, but that is a full 700 pounds more per dwelling that is spent in my constituency. i don't believe that the people of liverpool are being shortchanged. they are properly funded for the services that they need. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. last year i met a surgeon elites the outstanding cancer team

turkey explained it is one of the fastest growing cancers in the west but also one of the hardest to treat. surgery is grueling, incredibly painful and many people are unaware that the consistent heartburn and difficulty swallowing can be symptoms of a softer deal cancer. will he commit to raising much-needed awareness of this terrible disease and assure the nhs has resources to diagnose are no? >> i think my friend is right to raise the issue of about how we increase awareness of cancer. because that has an important effect in terms of early diagnosis. nhs england is currently running a pilot in the northeast and north congress to raise awareness as part of its be clear on cancer campaign. we are committing more than 459 pounds of additional funding to support his early diagnosis but i think the absolute key is making sure more people have the cancer discovered from trips to the gp and from their own

inspections and self-awareness rather than finding out these things in emergency often when it is too late. >> thank you, mr. speaker. there's almost a 1 million young people unemployed here at the uk. more than a million people -- in my constituency people are 11 pounds worse off. how is the prime minister have the audacity to suggest his party is a working party? [shouting] >> let me give them the figures for the northeast since the last election. there are 24,000 more people and work in the northeast since last election. there are 40,000 more private-sector jobs since the last election. unemployment has fallen -- tee shot and because he does want to hear the answer on long-term economic plan. he can talk about -- >> order. the honorabl honorable gentlemad

be shouted biggest asked the question. let him hear the answer. >> he should be asked about the massive expansion of providing jobs and northeast but he could be talk about the new train factory that will be built in the northeast. all of this shows the plan is working and, frankly, more important than these figures is the fact that every single job means another family with a payback wa with stability, withe security, with a piece up on this government is all about. [shouting] >> thank you, mr. speaker. [inaudible] will my honorable friend agree with me that early while you're learning as greatly -- building which is vital to our economic plan to? >> i would certainly agree with the honorable friend that the

big companies in britain, they are taking on apprentices in larger and larger numbers and that usually welcome. i think the challenge for us now is to encourage the small and medium-sized enterprises a britain to take on apprentices. we need to make it simpler and we've done that. we need to make sure it pays and we've done that. we need to advertise to promote to these companies what a great job of petitions can do for them and for the country. [inaudible] youth unemployment, published in house of commons. it shows -- [inaudible] >> of course there is still too many people unemployed in our country but the fact is there

are 1.6 million new private-sector jobs, 1.3 million more people in work. big cuts in unemployed, big reduction in the claimant count and also have the mine few people rely on out of work benefits. that's would want to do and, frankly, we haven't forgotten the record of the labour party. unemployment rose by nearly half a million. female unemployed rose by 24%, and use unemployed went up by 45%. instead of giving lectures they should be making an apology. >> thank you, mr. speaker. in recognizing british success at the oscars, with the prime minister join me in saying congratulation for me university where over 50 graduates help with the design effect of that amazing british film gravity? doesn't that prove that we lead the way and additional need is a great person -- destination?

and does amazing party conferences as well. [laughter] >> well as ever he is right about all of those things. the university does have excellent courses that have helped to build up the british postproduction and facilities industry which is now so busy helping to create these blockbuster films. it's very good news to see that not only are we winning oscars for british films but i joined the british studios are full of the bursting point making movies and also the facilities industry and the post production industry is now leading the world. we need to go on back in this industry. that's what my chancellor has been making steps with things like helping the gaming, the computer games industry, also helping high end of television and continuing to back the very important film tax credits that it works so very well. >> thank you, mr. speaker. recently east coast and in service and private companies, thousands of pounds in wages.

does the prime minister agree that the best way to protect patient staffing nhs resources is to extend federal information to private companies bidding for nhs contracts, and stop the invasion of -- [inaudible] >> obviously i will look carefully at the individual case that he raises but what i would say is this government is putting 12.7 billion pounds into the nhs and i don't believe that we should rule out saying that other organizations cannot help to deliver nhs services if we look at the engine broke hospital in cambridge it is not providing much better services because of the changes we have made. i look at what he says about the freedom of information request but i think it's important that we have the health service that can access the best of both public and private, involuntary. >> it's good news the prime minister has apparently resuscitated plans for a recall

bill but can he confirm he intends to push ahead with a genuine system of recall and not fall back on the deputy premise of the which has been widely discredited which is recall in name only and which wouldn't empower those in any meaningful sense at all? >> i fear it will be difficult to satisfy my honorable friend on this point. i think we should proceed taking the draft, taking that as a starting point for what i think would be an excellent report, reform we committed to in our manifesto although it was committed to in the coalition agreement and that is to say that its members of parliament are seriously in breach of standards and judged to be so, then they should have >> john kerry and the russian foreign minister discussed the situation in the ukraine and they agreed that the ukraine

needs assistance in implementing an agreement that had new elections. we will get an update next. a former irs official refuses to testify about the alleged scrutiny of conservative groups. on the 2015 pentagon budget request. >> the new website gives you access to an incredible library nonstopical events with coverage of national politics, history, and nonfiction books. than 200,000 hours of archives and everything that c-span has covered since 1987. it is all searchable and

viewable on your desktop, tablet, or smart phone. klees look for the prominent search bar. the new website makes it easy to watch what is happening in washington and find people and events from the past 25 years. it is the most comprehensive video library in politics. john kerry and the russian minister met in paris to discuss the ukraine and russia upon intervention in the country. this is courtesy of russia today. we just had a meeting with john kerry regarding the situation in the ukraine and the actions of our partners are threatening to undertake in the councils and other international

organizations. this does not help create an atmosphere of cooperation and john kerry admitted that we needed that atmosphere. it is difficult to work in an atmosphere of ultimatums and threats. it will be difficult in this environment to stabilize the situation and we agree that we need to support all ukrainians to implement the agreements that were achieved. right now, we will go to the foreign ministry of france. by france,joined poland, germany. these foreign ministers were present when the agreement was signed on february 21. thank you. the treasury secretary

announced one billion dollars in guarantees to help the ukraine with the political transition. he testified before the senate finance committee and said that economic sanctions against russia are possible in response to the intervention in the ukraine. he is working on a loan package for the ukraine. let me say aegin, few words about the situation in the ukraine. as president obama has explained, his belief is that the violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity is a breach of international law and we are looking into a wide range of actions. goal is toe de-escalate the situation in the ukraine. as the government prepares for elections, it is critical that the international committee -- community supports the efforts to restore economic stability. i've spoken with the minister

many times and he told me that his government is ready to adopt vital economic reforms. we have worked closely with international partners to develop and assistance package -- theement the recent reforms needed. of an international effort, the united states is focused on meeting the most pressing needs and this package will include a loan guarantee on the additional resources to the ukraine that inl help with leadership this institution at this critical time. while the united states will not increase with the 2010 reforms, it is important to note that other countries provide four dollars for every one dollar.

we will play a central an active first responder role in the ukraine. it is imperative that you pass this legislation so that we can show the support to the imf in this critical moment and preserve our leading influential voice in this institution. even as we deal with the unfolding events, we continued to focus on the central objective of expanding opportunity for all americans. >> the situation was debated in the house of commons. we will hear from the opposition leader and david cameron. miliband. [shouting] >> mr. speaker, the loss of a country has been watching events in ukraine with great concern to does the prime minister agree that russians actions in surrounding ukraine military sites violating ukraine's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity are completely without any justification? does he further agreed these

actions deserve to be condemned unreservedly across the international community? >> first of all i agree with the right honorable gym that what russia has done is completely unacceptable. we should be clear about our national interest and our aim in all of this. our national interest is that we have a strong interest in a world where the rule of law is upheld, where territorial integrity is suspected, stability is a vital part of our long-term economic plan and we should be clear our aim is to deter further russian military action and to de-escalate the situation and he's completely right to say that the action by the russian government should be condemned by the whole world. >> mr. speaker, i'm sure we agree there needs to be continued pressure on the russian government and i will come to that issue but all members will welcome the talks that are going on as we speed between u.s. secretary of state john kerry and foreign minister lavrov. given the fertility of the situation on the ground, does the prime minister agreed one important outcome from these talks would be if they lead to

direct high level talks between russia and ukraine? >> in order to de-escalate the situation the most important thing that should be arranged is a forum for discussions in which the russians and ukrainians can speak to each other. there have been some contacts between russia ministers and ukrainian ministers. this morning their meetings taking place in paris covering other issues as well but there has been some progress in putting together a contact group, an idea i proposed to the prime minister back in january to start having a group of countries around russia and ukraine to encourage such dialogue to take place. that's the single most important thing that could help to de-escalate the situation. >> mr. speaker, clearly we all up for a good outcome from those talks by the eu also has a crucial role to play. does he agree the eu at the leaders of some of tomorrow must show it is up for the task of dealing with the biggest security crisis on this

continent since kosovo? given the issues raised by the uk's opposition from the document, can he tell us what uk will be -- including keeping open the prospect of trade sanctions? >> first of all it is important that the european union shows the unity of purpose and a clear voice tomorrow at the leaders meeting. what i think we need to do is first of all the absolute clear that the status quo we're faced with today where russian troops are outside their bases in the crimea is acceptable. as i said, costs and consequences need to follow from the. that is why, for instance, with suspended preparations for the g8 meeting. indeed, it is hard to see in these current circumstances how we g8 meeting can properly go ahead. wwe have withdrawn royal visits in minister visits to the sochi paralympic games. othere are further steps we should consider even as we look at the current status quote, but we also need to consider what

extra steps, what extra as i put it political, economic and diplomatic steps to take to discourage russia. >> i completely share his view about the g8 and the other matters that he mentioned. let me raise one of issue within. when he was leader of the opposition in 2008, prior to the invasion of georgy said this, -- shopping on a week in the russian armies can march into the countries are russian shoppers carry on because he agree with me that we do not see the required action from russia we should look at asset freezes and troubled restrictions on individuals so that russia is clear about a consequence of his actions of? >> as i have put it women look at the diplomatic economic and political steps we can take nothing should be off the table. we've already taken some important steps in terms of ukrainian corrupt oligarchs in making sure that their assets

are properly dealt with, including here in the uk if that's the case. he should rule out other things for the future but as i try to explain today i think there are those steps we need to take in respect of the current unacceptable situation and didn't agree with our european partners and our american partners, and i'll be speaking to president obama this afternoon, and meeting with angela merkel the for the european council tomorrow, agree with what further steps should be taken as well. >> i'm sure he will push for as broad agreement as possible at the eu council and we welcome that. let me ask you about the ukraine government and support for them. is a great part of the way forward is providing them with that support, while making clear to them that the government needs to be inclusive and protect the rights of the russian speaking population within the ukraine? does he agree there' there is nn for russia to believe that strengthening ties to ukraine and the eu needs to be at the expense of russian? >> i think it is important to

write audible chairman says they should not be seen as a tug-of-war between the european union and russia. we should be in favor of the ukrainian people being able to choose their own future. in my view this has been as much about the ukrainian people wanting to lean towards a better relationship with the european union as much about that as wanting to get rid of the him calling -- appalling level of corruption that had to put up with in their government. i think that is the key thing. i think it's welcomed the foreign secretary and right that he was the first international leader to go to kiev and meet with ukrainian leaders. he made two important points. one is they must make sure they have an inclusive set of institutions and rules and laws in the ukraine, and did not discriminate against minorities or russian speakers but also we stand ready as members of the european union, as leading players in the international monetary fund to help the ukraine and in its hour of need. there are all sorts of steps the new ukrainian government to make

in order to make it possible but if they can do that then wishede should stand by them in their hour of need. >> i welcome that, let me say this finally. all of us recognize this is a delicate and dangerous moment of international security. it is a combination of diplomacy, result in international community, and support for the ukraine government and ukrainian self-determination that is the best hope for securing and into this crisis. i can assure the prime minister the government will have our full support. >> i'm very grateful of what the right honorable showman has said this morning. just as we need to see tomorrow a voice of unity and clarity from the countries of the european union, not always easy to get -- 20 different nations around the table but it's also very welcome there is such a clear and unified voice went out from this house. to say to the russian government what you've done is wrong, what you've done should not be allowed to stand and still be costs and consequences no

>> richard durbin wade in on the situation and spoke on the senate floor for 10 minutes. a reminder that you can see all of our programming at c-span.org. fect chicago afternoon, not in terms of weather, which has not been too kind to us lately, but in terms of my events on the schedule. my first stop was at navy pier for the lithuanian independence day celebration, an event which was important to me personally because my mother was born there. i happened to be on hand for the latest round of independence in lithuania when the soviet union was finally dispelled and this country was allowed to stand on its feet. it was a great celebration with regional food you might expect and dancing and music. i left there to go over to a

section of chicago known as ukrainian village. i had asked after church on sunday if my friends in the ukrainian-american community would come gather and we would invite a telephone call from kiev from the american ambassador jeffrey pyatt. i expected a nice crowd. i didn't expect an overflow crowd, but that's what i found. the concern of ukrainian americans and many others about the situation in that country is very tense and very personal. many of them have family members there, strong cultural family ties, and they are worried, very worried. and so the ambassador called in and gave a few moments of remarks and then answered questions, and then we met later to talk about some of the possibilities as we consider the future of ukraine. i looked through the audience and found many of my polish friends, many of my lithuanian friends, friends from all of the

different ethnic groups which had endured some form of soviet or russian aggression in the past. they felt bonded with the people of ukraine and ukrainian americans as we discussed this. i had hoped, mr. president, a few weeks ago that we had turned the corner in ukraine, that the difficult events of the last few months were coming to an end, but that didn't happen. we saw horrific violence in midan square and sadly many innocent people killed. just as ukraine seemed to be emerging from this difficult period with the departure of president -- president yanukovych, the russians moved in to crimea. i think that situation has moderated some. i don't know. it changes by the hour. but their decision to have a show of force in crimea is one we cannot ignore. that operation in crimea was so well orchestrated that it had to

have been planned by russian president vladimir putin during the 22nd winter olympic games hosted in sochi, russia. can anyone imagine anything so crass or brazen as to lavishly try to present russia to the world as a peaceful and modern olympic nation while secretly planning a military occupation of another neighboring country? the russian taxpayers should get their $51 billion back that they paid to set up the olympics. it was money wasted by vladimir putin to try to create an impression of a russia which sadly does not exist. mr. president, former ukrainian president viktor yanukovych freely elected, also squandered an historic opportunity to further modernize ukraine, to overcome corruption and to lift the aspirations of his people. he unnecessarily and cynically divided his nation, and instead of strengthening economic and

political ties with europe, reforming his economy and respecting ukraine's historical ties to russia, he set off to become a pawn of moscow. he saw his survival politically teaming up with vladimir putin. as the emerging pictures from yanukovych's opulent palace illustrate, he enriched himself personally. his enablers, while allowing the country's promising yet troubled economy to deteriorate. ultimately, his government led a bloody assault on their own people, using heavily armed snipers to massacre ukrainian people in the streets of kiev. i met with mr. yanukovych and many in his government just a year and a half ago. yanukovych said that he truly saw his country's future with greater ties to the west, but under enormous russian pressure, he was able to let go of his own political grudges and terrified of transparency that an

association agreement with european union would mean for his corrupt regime, he ultimately put his own political future ahead of the globe of the needs of his own people. we all know the traj -- tragic consequences of such actions. just look at syria and venezuela. the results in ukraine were no different. i understand that the crimean region of ukraine has a long, complicated history. i understand that then-soviet prime minister gave ukraine, never imagining the collapse of the soviet union and an independent ukraine to follow. let's be clear about what happened. ukraine wasn't joining nato. ukraine wasn't joining the european union. ukraine wasn't proposing cutting off its economic and political ties with usual. ukraine was simply contemplating

signing a long negotiated trade agreement with the european union, and for that rationale alone, vladimir putin decided to militarily invade and occupy ukraine. now, i know mr. putin says he was protecting russian citizens, but there have been no credible examples of threats to any russian citizens in ukraine. in fact, "the new york times" reported this week that russian tourists have been sent to eastern ukraine where they are stirring up anger and resentment against the ukrainian government in kiev. arguing that russia can militarily invade another country any time, to protect russian people is an ominous suggestion that raises alarms for independent sovereign nations all along the russian borders and also raises the chapters of history back in the middle of the 20th century, which we need not recount here in detail. one need only look at the two regions of georgia that have

been militarily occupied by russia since 2008. russia continues to illegally occupy these areas and has erected fences along administrative lines and permanent military bases in violation of the cease-fire agreement negotiated with the european union. now, i have been there myself and i have seen the deeply troubling permanent bases and boundary fences in georgia. the president of the republic of georgia came to see me the day after the final ceremonies at sochi at the olympic ceremonies, and he said there was a report that morning after the final ceremony that the russians were stringing barbed wire around the perimeters of the places they were occupying in georgia. russia even stopped some of the demarcation during the olympics but started, as i have said, again after the games' conclusion. russian actions in ukraine and georgia are a clear violation of international obligations and treaties. for example, russia was a

signatory to the 1994 budapest memorandum. that reaffirmed its commitment to ukraine to respect the independence and sovereignty and existing borders of that nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of ukraine, to refrain from economic coercion, to subordinate ukraine to russia's interests and to consult in the event the situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments. remember why the budapest memorandum was entered into by russia, the united states and the united kingdom as well, as well as ukraine. it was entered into because the ukrainians were surrendering their nuclear weapons. they had decided to give up their nuclear arsenal as long as they had an assurance that they would be protected and their sovereignty would be respected. russians signed on and then summarily ignored it by basically the act of aggression in crimea in this last week.

in 1997, the russian federation and ukraine signed a friendship treaty. it was during that time that russian president boris yeltsin said in kiev we respect and honor the territorial integrity of ukraine. as a participating state in the final act of the conference for security and cooperation in europe in 1975, russia committed to respect the sovereign equal and individuality of other participating states. mr. president, it is clear that in many respects, russia has violated the very agreements it signed. it has shown an act of aggression in a sovereign nation of ukraine. now i will concede the situation is complicateed because of the basic agreement between russia and ukraine when it comes to that critical piece of real estate in the black sea, but it still does not warrant the efforts that have been made by putin to destabilize an effort toward peaceful government.

mr. putin has argued that the change in government in kiev was just the mob in the street. nothing could be further from the truth. it occurred through its parliament and through its constitution and with the promise of an open and free election on may 25. it's up to us in the west and all countries that believe ukraine deserves our assistance and support to make sure that that election is carefully monitored, it is totally legal and free and the people of ukraine have the last word about their future and their leadership. mr. putin ought to be part of the observation team, at least his representatives. so there is no argument about a free and fair election in ukraine. we also need to help this country that's going through some extremely difficult economic times. a recent article i read suggested ukraine needs our assistance way beyond the $1 billion which secretary kerry has talked about in his visit. but in order to achieve that, they're going to have to make some significant and maybe

unpopular reforms in their economy, in their gas program and the like. it's tricky. to do that runs the risk of a popular backlash against these reforms but without the reforms, there could be no meaningful aid package. we need to stand with ukraine and ukraine needs to stand for the reforms necessary to strengthen their economy. this week i'm working with senators brown, shaheen, wicker, king, collins and warren warner to condemn the russian action in crimea. there's more to be done. senator menendez talked -- the aid and the sanctions that may be necessary. i sincerely hope the sanctions won't be necessary. i hope vladimir putin and the russians understand they cannot show this kind of aggression toward crimea without a cost. but i hope they'll do it soon so that we can see the return of stability to ukraine.

ukraine is a critically important country, the second largest country in europe today. it was a major part of the soviet union and its independence i'm sure has rankled mr. putin and his dreams of russian empire. but the people of ukraine should decide their future, not vladimir putin. we need to work with those people in ukraine to give them a chance at self-governance,to to pursues the values we share here in the united states. i hope my colleagues on a bipartisan basis will join us condemning >> a house panel meets to look at the recent events in the ukraine and the form policy options in the region. andsolution was introduced it calls for economic sanctions against russia. live coverage begins at 9:00. c-span-two, the conversation

with dan pfeiffer. that is at it :00 eastern. eastern. lois lerner declined to testify about the alleged scrutiny of conservative groups filing for tax exempt status. then, chuck hagel takes questions on the pentagon budget request. >> we have a vast enforcement role and one of the most critical things the agency does is to enforce the agency laws and we have to write the rules for wall street and we do not have criminal authority. we have the power to bring civil fraud action and negligence

actions against those who violate the federal securities laws. penaltiesess civil and our level of penalties is not as high as we would like it to be. we would like higher penalties disgorge ill-gotten gains. and, we have the power to bar cannoty so that they live another day to defraud again. nighty jo white, sunday on q&a. >> the house oversight committee chairman adjourned a hearing on the alleged targeting of conservative groups. lois lerner refused to answer

his questions. adjourned then committee without giving the democrats a chance to make a statement. tried to respond and the hearing was over 20 minutes. >> the committee will come to order. we are here today to continue a hearing that began on may 22, 2013, called the i.r.s.

targeting americans for their political beliefs. the purpose of the hearing is to gather facts about how and why the i.r.s. improperly scrutinized certain organizations that applied for tax exempt status. before we resume our questioning, i'm going to briefly state for the record a few developments that have occurred since the hearing began nine months ago. these are important for the record and for ms. lerner to know and understand. on may 22, 2013, after being sworn in at the start of the hearing, ms. lerner made a voluntary statement under oath discussing her position at the i.r.s. and professing her

innocence. ms. lerner did not provide the committee with any advance notification of her intention to make such a statement during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement -- such a statement. during her self-selected and entirely voluntary statement she spoke in detail about core issues under consideration at the hearing when she stated, i have not done anything wrong, i have not broken any laws. i have not violated any i.r.s. rules or regulations, and i have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee. ms. lerner then stated her intention to invoke the fifth amendment and then in response to a request by ranking member cummings, she confirmed orally the authenticity of a document that was entered into the record. she subsequently reinvoked her

fifth amendment rights in response to several questions, she then refused to provide any substantive response to those questions. at that hearing, a member of the committee, mr. gowdy, stated that ms. lerner had waived her right to invoke the fifth amendment because she had given voluntary statement professing her innocence. i temporarily excused ms. lerner from the hearing and subsequently recessed the hearing to consider whether ms. lerner had in fact waived her fifth amendment rights. meanwhile, the committee's investigation proceeded without ms. lerner's testimony. to date we have conducted 33 bipartisan transcribed interviews of witnesses from the i.r.s. we have heard witnesses' testimony during five committee and subcommittee hearings. because the i.r.s. is not full -- has not fully cooperated with the committee's investigation, i

have issued three subpoenas for documents. the i.r.s. continues to withhold some of ms. lerner's emails from the committee. documents and testimony show that ms. lerner is uniquely positioned to provide testimony that will help the committee better understand how and why the i.r.s. targeted conservative groups. at a business meeting on june 28, 2013, the committee approved a resolution rejecting ms. learner's claim of fifth amendment privilege based on her waiver at the may 22, 2013. after that vote, having made the determination that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights, the committee recalled her to appear today to answer questions pursuant to rules. the committee voted and found that ms. lerner waived her fifth amendment rights by making a statement on may 22, 2013.

addition -- and additionally by affirming documents making fifth amendment rights. if she continues to refuse to answer questions from our members while she's under a subpoena, the committee may proceed to consider whether she should be held in contempt. since it's been 9 1/2 months since we started this hearing, i'm going to ask her to refirm her oath. let the record indicate the witness did answer in the affirmative. ms. lerner, put up slide one, please.

on october 10 -- in october, 2010, you told a duke university group, and i quote, the supreme court dealt a huge blow overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn't give directly to political campaigns. ms. learner, what exactly -- ms. lerner, wanted to fix the problem caused by citizens united, what does that mean. could you please turn the mike on. >> moimy counsel advised me i have notwayed my constitutional rights under the fifth amendment and under his advice i decline

to answer any subject matter in this hearing. >> so you're not going to tell us who wanted to fix the problem under citizens united. >> under the advice of counsel i invoke my fifth amendment right and refuse to answer the question. >> in february, 2011, you emailed your colleagues and the following. tea party matter very dangerous. this could be the vehicle to go to court on the issue of whether citizens united overturning the ban on corporate spending applies to tax exempt rules. counsel and judy kindell need to be on this one please. crinecy should probably not -- cincy should probably not -- all in caps, have these cases. what did you mean by cincy shouldn't have these cases?

>> on the advice of counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer the question. >> ms. lerner, why would you say tea party cases were dangerous. >> on the advice of counsel i respectfully invoke my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, you emailed your subordinates about initiating a, parenthesis c-4 project and wrote, we need to be cautious so that it isn't a per se political project. why were you worried about this being perceived as a political project? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully inters my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, mike ceto, manager of e.o. technical in washington testified that you ordered tea party cases to

undergo a multitier review. he testified, and i quote, she sent me emails saying that when these cases need to go through -- i'll say it again, she sent me email saying that when these cases need to go through multitier review and they will eventually have to go to ms. kindell and the chief counsel's office. why did you order tea party cases to undergo a multitier review. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, in june, 2011, you requested that holly pawes obtain a copy of the tax exempt application filed by crossroads g.p.s. so that your senior technical advisor, judy kindell, could review it and summarize the issues for you. ms. lerner, why did you want to

personally order that they pull crossroads g.p.s., karl roves' organization's application. >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner in june of 2012, you were part of an email exchange that appeared to be about writing new regulations on political speech for 501c4 groups and in trent sis your quote, off plan in 2013. ms. lerner, what does off plan mean? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question.

>> ms. lerner, in february of 2014, president obama stated that there was not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting. ms. lerner, do you believe that there is not a smidgen of corruption in the i.r.s. targeting of conservatives? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ms. lerner, on saturday, our committee's general counsel sent an email to your attorney saying, i understand that ms. lerner is willing to testify and she is requesting a one week delay in talking to the chairman -- excuse me. in talking to the chairman, wanted to make sure that was right. your lawyer in response to that question gave a one-word email response. yes. are you still seeking a one-week

delay in order to testify? >> on the advice of my counsel i respectfully exercise my fifth amendment right and decline to answer that question. >> ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. i can see no point in going further. i have no expectation that ms. lerner will cooperate with this committee and therefore we shall -- >> mr. chairman, i have a statement. i have a procedural question, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have a procedural question. mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you just cannot do this. this is -- we are better than that as a country, we're better than that as a committee. i have asked for a few minutes

i want to ask a question. what are we hiding? what's the big deal? may i ask my question? may i state my statement? >> you're all free to leave, we've adjourned, but the gentleman may ask his question. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman, i have a one procedural question. and it goes to trying to help you get the information by the way that you just asked. >> what is your question? >> let me say what i have to say. i've listened to you for the last 15 or 20 minutes. let me say what i have to say. i have one procedural question. >> ms. lerner, you're released. >> i'd like to take the time to make some brief points. for the past year, the central republican accusation -- >> we're adjourned -- >> before our committee -- \[inaudible] >> thank you.

>> \[inaudible] >> shame, shame, shame. >> -- a president's political enemy. effectively lied about it during the election year in the fall. he continued -- \[inaudible] >> if you will sit down and allow me to ask a question, i am a member of the congress of the united states of america. >> well -- >> we have people here, each of who represent 700,000 people. you cannot have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that and this is absolutely un-american. >> hear, hear. >> we had a hearing, it's adjourned. i gave you the opportunity to ask a question. >> do i have a question -- i do have a question. >> i gave you the opportunity. >> what are you hiding?

>> he's pleading the fifth. \[laughter] >> -- to discuss the republican staff report claiming that ms. lerner was, quote, at center of the effort to target conservative groups. although we provided a copy of this report to fox, he refused my -- \[inaudible] provided to the members of the committee. the fact however does not support these claims. we have now only 38 employees who have all told us the same thing. that the white house was not directed, subjected or even knew about it at the time it was occurring. and none -- \[inaudible] any political motivation. the inspector general, russell george, told us the same thing. he found no evidence of any white house involvement or

political motivation. instead, the very first line of the results of his report says that it began with -- \[inaudible] who i quote, developed and used inappropriate criteria to identify applications from organizations with the words tea party in their names, end of quote. our committee confirmed this fact when we interviewed a screening group manager from cincinnati. this manager explained that his employees were the ones who first came up with the inappropriate search terms in 2010. he denied any political motivation and he made his point by explaining that he is, a quote, conservative republican. i release this entire interview transcript eight months ago for anyone who wants to read it for themselves. the inspector general's report also found that they did not discover use of this criteria until a year later, in 2011. which when he learned about them, and i quote again from the

report, she immediately directed the criteria be changed, end of quote. mr. george's chief investigator also reviewed more than 5,500 emails from i.r.s. employees and, again, found no evidence of political motivation. over the past year, our committee has obtained hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and interviewed dozens of witnesses. the i.r.s. has spent more than $14 million responding to congressional investigations. we have identified absolutely no evidence to support allegations of a political conspiracy against conservative groups. what we have identified, however, is evidence of gross mismanagement. ms. lerner failed to discover these employees were using these search terms for a year and even after she ordered them to stop, they returned to using similar inappropriate criteria and she failed to inform congress about

what she knew. so i do have serious questions for ms. lerner and i'm very disappointed that i will not be able to ask them today. but i do not support the republican conclusion that she waived her constitutional right nine months ago when she invoked the fifth amendment and i do not believe a court would uphold that conclusion. now, the chairman's gone, but i'd like to ask him a few procedural questions involving having a proper -- \[inaudible]. as i said a little bit earlier, her attorney -- if she loses something, nobody gains anything. on february 26, her attorney sent a letter to the committee saying that he met with the chairman's staff last month. at that meeting her attorney said, and i quote, the staff asked if i would provide a proper testimony she would give and i agreed to do that, end of quote. but that did not happen.

as i understand it, accepting the proffer does not grant immunity to the witness it. does not bind the committee in any way. instead, it allows the committee to obtain information without requiring the witness to waive her fifth amendment rights. i was not invited to the meeting last month when her attorney and i have not been included in any negotiations but it seems to me that the committee loses nothing by accepting this proffer and in fact we may gain important information. as a matter of fact, the very questions that the chairman just asked ms. lerner when she invoked her fifth amendment rights, those are the kind of questions that can be answered in a proffer. so i wanted to ask the chairman whether the committee can schedule a time, preferably this week, for all committee members to hear the proffer from ms. lerner's attorney and with that i yield back. yes, sir.

>> i just want to note for the record i find it supreme irony that the chairman of this committee would unilaterally side -- \[inaudible] that an american citizen has waived her fifth amendment rights while actually exercising his fifth amendment right not to answer your question to be asked of the minority of this committee. >> thank you very much. \[captioning performed by national captioning institute] \[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014]

>> after today's hearing on the alleged i.r.s. targeting of political groups, oversight committee chairman darrell issa and the committee's top democrat aligea cummings spoke with reporters. >> we had a hearing today in the committee in which we asked ms. lerner whose lawyer had indicated that under certain conditions she would testify, she chose not to testify. afterar an exhaustive seven questions, i determined that she was not under any circumstances going to testify and pursuant to an already completed hearing other than her testimony, i adjourned. at this point we will continue our investigation into the i.r.s. targeting of conservative groups without the testimony of ms. lerner.

are there any questions? >> why did you not let mr. cummings -- \[inaudible] >> there were no -- he was not directing questions toward the witness and the committee had already adjourned. >> why did you adjourn before turning to your colleague and asking him -- >> pursuant to the committee, we were -- we recessed only to determine whether or not we could get her to give testimony. once it was determined she could not give testimony, there was no question before us. mr. cummings did not raise a point of privilege or a point of order and in fact i did recognize him when he said he had a question. he went into an opening statement. opening statements had already been completed. there were 40 members sitting at the dais and we had already adjourned. therefore i left because there was no question pending. >> \[inaudible] >> because he was talking into a mike in an adjourned meeting. the fact is mr. cummings came to make a point of his objections to the process week of been going through.

he was actually slandering me at the moment that the mikes did go off by claiming that this had not been a real investigation. this had been a bipartisan investigation, by multiple committees in which we had testimony in multiple hearings including mr. jordan's subcommittee, in which it was very clear there was targeting of conservative groups, in which there were people who were acting outside the norm. we're going to continue our investigation. but just because mr. cummings would like to have a more convenient truth doesn't give him the right to make a speech. i went through a process of asking questions to determine whether ms. lerner would in fact testify. she made it clear through multiple questions that she would not do it and she would not do it with the delay that her attorney had asked for. i have exhausted any possibility of her speaking. at this point we have attempted to, multiple ways, including

making it clear we could do a one-week delay. they changed their mind and declined that. we're going to go forward with the investigation. mr. jordan has additional work to do. >> are you considering -- \[inaudible] >> you know, that's certainly something that has to be considered. at this point we've been looking for the truth. we had hoped that ms. lerner, particularly in light of so many direct emails that are now with us in evidence, in both republicans and democrats both have the same things that we asked the questions on today, we had hoped to get answers from her. we'll continue to seek answers from other areas. but it's very clear that, for example, why did she ask for a cross roads g.p.s.'s application to be scrutinized by name? we will probably not know that because that is something that is only in her mind. >> you said that the hearing -- \[inaudible] to find out whether or not she was going to talk or

not. you still asked several questions, yet you did not give her democratic colleague that same opportunity. >> he was not intending to ask her any questions. it had been determined that she wouldn't -- >> he didn't even have the chance. >> mr. cummings said he had questions to ask. instead he began making an opening statement. even after the committee had been adjourned. therefore the committee stood adjourned. >> how much of this is a political play for republicans in the election? >> none, not a shred of it. not a smidgen of it. not a smidgen of it. the fact is that this targeting is something that the president initially came out outraged against, as we were. as we began our investigation we discovered that there was clear differential treatment of conservative groups, particularly if their name included patriot or tea party. and for some reason the administration has gone from supportive of this kind of bad behavior when they said it was

only in cincinnati, to opposing and saying there isn't a smidgen of evidence. >> there's concern among the republican leadership that the object of this will effect -- >> i have no idea what's in the minds of republicans other than the ones on this committee. the ones on this committee have sat through hearings, reviewed information and are prepared to continue the investigation like we do all our investigations. any other questions? >> \[inaudible] >> as you could see from our questioning today, we have continued to gather facts around ms. lerner's absence of testimony. it would have allowed us to bring this investigation to a probably pretty quick close if she'd been willing to answer those questions. without it, we will undoubtedly have a few more questions to try to find out things that she could have answered quickly today. >> are you still confident you'll get to the bottom of this? >> it may well be that we have gotten to the bottom of it. at this point roads lead to ms. lerner. the witness who took the fifth. and she becomes one of the key

characters at this point. had she been willing to explain those emails which were provided through separate subpoenas, then we could have perhaps brought this to a close. without that it may dead end with ms. lerner. >> what's the process of pursuing contempt? >> there's committee rules on that, i'll go through it. we're going to confer afterwards. any other questions, i think mr. cummings would like time. \[inaudible] >> we're going to -- we're going to there's cameras everywhere. we will confer to see our next steps. but ms. lerner is not our primary concern today. nor is the contempt. obviously we're going to continue investigating others at the i.r.s. and make a determination of how we can, you know, you asked a question earlier of, do you think she's going to testify? i have less than likely, but

there is in fact a possibility that given a federal judge's orders she would testify. so we're going to have to consider all of those possibilities of whether or not there's any way to get testimony by a key character who very, very clearly had information and isn't willing to give it to us. thank you. ok, thank you. >> today i wanted to make clear that from the very beginning this has been an effort to blame the white house for or claim that the white house targeted political enemies of the president through the i.r.s. we have now interviewed 38 i.r.s. employees, hundreds of